Mobile Age – Take it or leave it.

Mobile Age – Take it or leave it.

One of the things I have noticed recently is how everything is shifting to mobile. The younger generations don’t even know how to use any other device to communicate outside their cell phone or other hand held devices. Base on a post by Stephen Pierzchala on January 15, 2013, titled Mobile Commerce Has Come of Age. Are You Ready? It is obvious that there is a paradigm shift to mobile devices for personal use and commerce. Which made me think if there will be more mobile projects targeting mobile users of all ages. The mobile apps in the US have doubled in the past years. Stephen Pierzhala noted that “Mobile is the fastest-growing segment of the online commerce world”.

 

mobile                              gsma1

Figure 1.                                                                                                            Figure 2

This fact is backed up the Global Association of Mobiles companies (GMSA). See the figure below. Universities lecture are available online. Many students are used to listening to class lectures on their mobile device. There are several factors leading to this growth. There are so many apps for mobile devices. Almost all major banks, insurance companies and supermarkets have a mobile app to buy products and/or services online.

The cultural shift to mobile life style is global in nature but not at the same rate globally. The US is leading the paradigm shift followed by Europe. In the 2013 report by GSMA (link 2 below) shows that mobile wireless data use per connection in the U.S. is significantly higher than in the EU. In 2013, Cisco projects U.S. customers will use nearly twice as much data per connection as customers in the EU. Figure 3 in this blog show how much data US mobile consumers are using compare to European mobile consumer.

gsma2

The mobile space will continue to grow there are endless providers of mobile devices and services. One of the major problems is the quality of service. The mobile space quality of service varies from one provider to another, even within the US which has the highest rating globally. Mobile users in the US still complain about poor quality of service depending on where you are located. While the mobile industry has grown significantly especially with products such as I-Phone, I-pad, etc, there are still room for a lot of improvement. With respect to project management it is interesting to know which of the project management principles or philosophy will not work very well when developing mobile products, applications (apps), or services. I have seen many DePaul students especially the undergrad playing video games on their mobile devices. Which make me to also wonder the type of problems these mobile devices introduces to our society and what educational project will be needed to build awareness against the dangers it poses. I believe don’t text while driving is clearly established as an example. ATT has developed an app to solve this problem see reference 4.

 

Reference

  1. http://www.dmnews.com/mobile-commerce-has-come-of-age-are-you-ready/article/276182/#
  2. http://www.gsmamobilewirelessperformance.com/GSMA_Mobile_Wireless_Performance_May2013.pdf
  3. http://www.mobal.com/international-cell-phones/
  4. http://developer.att.com/developer/forward.jsp?passedItemId=12500023&_requestid=39763&gclid=CNjAvZ2Q1rcCFbFAMgodi2oAGQ

Happy Competitors

 

On June 27 BlackBerry will launch its BBM messaging application for both iOS and Android smartphone platform users for free. BBM has been of one the key features in all BlackBerry smartphones.  According to blackBerry there are currently more than 60 million monthly active users of BBM, who send and receive more than 10 billion messages each day. This equivalents nearly twice as many messages per user per day as compared to other mobile messaging apps.

Few years ago BBM was the most active messaging application in the market and the reason for many people not to switch to an iPhone or Android cellphones. It was also very secure, reliable and was also equipped with voice, video calling and screen sharing and was on its way to become into a new type of social network. Even to this date there is nothing else that comes close to such service.  This gave Black Berry the edge over all the smartphones in the market and had established a very loyal fan following.

But soon blackBerry will make BBM available on both IOS and Android devices and this might just take away its edge.  As BBM was the main platform for people to interact on their BlackBerry smart-phones, this new service will give its consumers the ability to use this application onto any one of those devices of their choosing and I think this will create a big problem for BlackBerry in the near future.

I think BlackBerry should have hold on making this move and should have seen how their new smartphones will perform and on based on that they should have made the decision of what to do with their BBM application on whether or not they should put in the hands of their rival smartphone companies like Apple and Google.  To me it also seems weird that they would launch this application on other IOS and android devices before launching it on to their BlackBerry PlayBook.  Does this mean that they have completely given up on their tablet market? If so what kind of message would this send to their consumers and investors?

Another thing that BlackBerry has done is that they will be providing the BBM application for free to its both IOS and android users. I don’t think this was a smart move from a management standpoint. If you know that so many people are using your application and that it is one of the best one out in the market then they should have charged some sort of a purchase fee for the application knowing that people will pay for it no matter what. This would have given some sort of extra side revenue that they could have applied to their operations.

I also believe that if they would have acted on this sooner when the demand for application was even greater couple years earlier then what it is today, it might have still worked out to their benefit.

Do you think that this move will prove profitable for BlackBerry or will it backfire? Also should they have acted earlier on this when other applications like What’s App, iMessage were not as popular?

Sources:

http://n4bb.com/multiplatform-bbm-blackberrys-play-biggest-social-network/

http://www.yolevski.com/blackberry-bbm-for-iphone-and-android/

http://bgr.com/2013/06/05/blackberry-bbm-android-iphone-preloaded/

Changing the Gaming Landscape

 

Recently Microsoft announced their newest version of its Xbox series, the Xbox One. The Xbox has been one of the most profitable products for the Microsoft in the last decade and with Xbox One Microsoft hopes to continue that tradition. When Xbox 360 was last released around eight years ago there were no iPads; we still had smart phones with keyboards and the smart phone app stores were still in there initial phase. But a lot has changed in the last eight years; today games can be played from virtually anywhere and on any device with everyone online.

Because of the rise in the mobile gaming and its low prices, gaming systems like Xbox, Play-Stations, Nintendo has started seeing decline in their sales.  According to a report released by a leading technology research firm IDC, they concluded that paying for games on smart-phones and tablets would outpace paid gaming on portable video game hand-held devices by the end of the year. According to Nick Wingfield’s article in the New York Times U.S retail sales of game hardware and software fell by 25 percent to $495.2 million in April from $657.3 million earlier last year. This means that more and more people prefer mobile gaming rather then the old traditional gaming methods. This also proves that the life cycle for these gaming consoles will be cut short drastically unless they innovate their products for more use then just gaming.

So to keep up in the race, companies like Microsoft has started innovating their gaming consoles into more useful ways. Microsoft noted saying that they want to see their Xbox product as a more useful tool in peoples living room then just for gaming purposes. So to achieve this they want the Microsoft’s technology to take the center stage of a home entertainment system, which would end up giving people access to online videos. Apart from that Microsoft is also planning to develop its own original live-action television series that would be accessible through the Xbox. To stay ahead of the competition and to stay in the market they are also working with National Football League to develop an app for Xbox that would let players interact with their fantasy football teams while watching the live game.

From all this innovation that Microsoft is bringing in to the new Xbox, it is clearly evident that they are trying to do more with their consoles then just using them for gaming purposes.

Surely technology has come way forward then it was then Microsoft’s earlier product was launched eight years ago but do you think that will this affect the products life cycle? Will the mobile industry have drastic effect to gaming hardware systems like the Xbox, Nintendo, or PlayStation? Will innovation in their product similarly to what Microsoft has done will help them stay survive for a long time as it previous products?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/technology/xbox-one-faces-wider-range-of-competition.html?_r=0

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/paid-games-on-smartphones-to-outpace-handheld-consoles/

Picture:

Microsoft’s Xbox One gaming console.

(Credit: James Martin/CNET)

 

Saving the Planet One Aisle at a Time: Tesco’s Sustainability Movement

Many companies want to promote sustainability within their markets since it attracts more customers, however competition and living within specific limits are stopping them from achieving this goal. Sustainability, which includes sustainable design, building and operations, is the collection of strategies and policies employed by companies in order to reduce their overall impact on the future generations. By taking waste from one part of the production process and using that waste to generate new product is a great way to minimize the consumption of limited natural resources and maintain their availability for the future.

800px-Bradley_Stoke_Tesco_2It is very important for management to set goals and develop a strategy when searching for improvement opportunities in order to implement a sustainability program within their company. I think it is much easier being sustainable than going green and many other companies are following in such footsteps.

For instance, Tesco, a British multinational grocery store and third-largest general merchandise retailer in the world measured by revenues and second-largest measured by profits, has recently planned out new business strategies and goals in three various areas, one of which is to reduce food waste globally and become a more sustainable company.

Tesco-1024x468

Research by Tesco shows that about one third of the world’s food is never eaten and instead it is thrown out or left to rot. Therefore, Tesco is planning to pursue this food waste issue in three crucial areas which are: its own operations, the supply chain and agriculture, as well as the customers. The company has the ability to track down waste and find where it happens as it leaves the farmer’s field and reaches the customers’ home, and everything that happens in between.

According to the article, Tesco claims that around 32 percent of food is wasted across its value chain, of which 16 percent comes from the supply chain and agriculture, the other 16 percent coming from customers and less than 1 percent is from the retailer.

Because of the large amount of food waste across all markets, the company is working to develop an advanced measurement for the amount of food ruined in its operations. This will permit Tesco to track progress through a period of time which can significantly minimize the waste as well as achieve its goal of sustainability. Since the food waste is much lower in the UK than in other markets, it plans to follow in their specific operational practices and more precise forecasting so that food does not rot or is thrown out with the high supply rate.

Being more transparent and sustainable for a company with a global marketplace is tough, however, Tesco hopes that by keeping a strong track record of its waste management will lead to a decrease in the food waste levels throughout its value chain, attract more customers, and keep increasing its profits.

Do you think the tracking record will achieve greater sustainability for Tesco or should they examine other ways to manage their inventory and to minimize the overall food waste?

Source: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/05/29/tesco-announces-goal-to-reduce-food-waste-globally/

Sustainability with a LUS(H)cious Twist

Lush logo

This generation continuously asks questions. Some of the major one’s that companies are asking revolve around sustainability. How can we become sustainable? How do we incorporate sustainability into what our company stands for? The company Lush Cosmetics has found a way to answer those questions in a very luscious manner. Lush is a company based in the UK that creates organic soaps and other body products to free consumers from chemicals typically used in such products. This company prides itself on finding ways to keep the world a healthier place. Therefore, Lush has decided to incorporate ‘CloudApps’ into their management strategy.

CloudApps is a multi-award winning sustainability program that helps companies monitor their carbon footprints. This software also covers performance management and reporting, energy management, and employee engagement along with the carbon footprint management. This system is very intriguing because it’s not only incorporating the sustainability factor for energy and waste, but it is also helping to create a sustainable and resourceful work force throughout the international company.

lush youtube backgroundBy introducing this new operational infrastructure of the company, Lush has been able to get creative in being resourceful in the companies shipping process. All of Lush’smanufacturing factories are over in Europe. This would essentially mean that shipment is not cheap and very wasteful. Instead of allowing this waste to be created, Lush took it upon them selves to find cheaper and lighter ways to fly products overseas. Most of their soaps aren’t individually packaged allowing them to ship more for a lower cost. This reduces the use of extra waste and in my opinion is the best way to ship a fairly durable mass quantity of product.

Not only has this system helped create a more resourceful company, it has also tied recycling into the companies outlook. Since recycling begins at the design, the company has invited customers to return the empty containers that are left over so that they can recycle them internally and be put towards a new container. The company even reaches out as far as asking for all of their customers empty bottle tops so that they can be melted down into a new container as well. I feel that Lush is doing a sensational job with this. They have cut down on packaging by 62% just by taking advantage of recycling!

Monitoring the carbon and operational infrastructures of the company has also influenced regulations and reputation for the company. Pressures on employees to recycle and think resourceful have made an even bigger impact on what the company can give back lush_cosmetic_product_shot1.28sweui6r78kcc804wgsk0gsg.5r15frdicg4kos40gwk400wsw.thto the environment. The company uses the CloudApps to decide what employees get specific bonuses based on how much they are recycle and energy consumption. It is shocking how one little change can help a company produce a number of healthier environments. They have shaped the work environment of the company as well as taken ethical actions in producing a healthier global environment.

Do you think that this approach to their staff will back fire one day? Is the need to monitor and reward the future of management? In comparison to “The Skies TheLimit” spaghetti and marshmallow project, do you think that if we (students) would perform differently if were told about a reward for the highest and most stable tower? How does this act sustainability take part in a better future for other companies?

 

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/04/20/lush-cosmetics-taps-the-cloud-to-track-its-carbon-footprint/

http://www.cloudapps.com/product-overview/

Sustaining The Nike Swoosh

The sports apparel powerhouse Nike, Inc. has recently released big changes in the news by announcing a partnership with Swiss company Bluesign Technologies.  The partnership will accelerate the supply of sustainable materials and chemistries for use in all Nike products.  What does that mean exactly?  Well, it means Nike is going green – they are taking steps to make the production of their textiles more sustainable for their workers, customers, and environment.

Though I bet not many of you have heard of Bluesign Technologies, their company is quite interesting.  They have also partnered with The North Face on a journey to sustainability.  The link provided here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkOQVQdJ_Lo) is a short video which details great information regarding Bluesign; how they work, the benefit of using their technologies, and how it can better the environment.  Basically, Bluesign is an input management system.  They know everything that thNikeey put into their production and calculate the effect of a chemical used in a textile regarding their air emissions, water emissions, and how it affects the workplace so that they know the outcome a chemical has before even starting production.

Nike is utilizing two of Bluesign Technologies that will provide Nike’s supply chain with access to roll out the tools across Nike’s global supply chain.  With one of the technologies, Bluefinder, a supplier can access pre-screened sustainable textile preparations including dye systems, detergents, and other chemicals used in the manufacturing process.  The benefit of this tool is that it helps suppliers manage restricted substances and increase water/energy efficiency.  The second tool Nike will utilize is Blueguide which gives Nike access to 30,000+ materials produced using chemicals from the Bluefinder at facilities that have undergone rigorous assessment.

Nike is pursuing to enhance their sustainable material strategy.  They are looking to put a set of positive chemistries in the hands of material suppliers by preventing the use of hazardous chemicals.  With Nike using these technologies, they can change production with many manufacturers by having them use technologies in order to produce more sustainable products and increase efficiencies.

I think this is a great partnership for many reasons.  First, as we discussed in class, sustainability is win-win and has a multifold positive impact.  Furthermore, without these technologies Nike’s supply chain had to go through individual factory assessments.  Now, their supply chain will run more efficiently with more innovative products.  With the integration of Bluesign Technologies, materials will be made in a manner which is sustainable between products, the environment, and the manufacturing factory.  The sustainability advantage is not only effective in Nike’s products, but in improving their supply chain by making production more innovative, stable, and of higher quality.  This aspect of their operations management is greatly going to improve Nike to being not only a sports powerhouse, but a sustainable one as well.

 How beneficial do you think the use of Bluesign Technologies will be to Nike?

Do you look more favorably on a company that takes efforts to reduce their carbon footprint and provide more sustainable products- why/not?

Nike

Sources:

http://nikeinc.com/news/nike-partners-with-bluesign-technologies-to-scale-sustainable-textiles

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/03/20/nike-supply-chain-to-use-bluesign-sustainability-tools/

Nike Relationship with Livestrong Charity Dies!

A relationship that generated millions and branded Nike to what it is today has finally come to an end. After a nine year relationship, Nike is closing down its support with the Livestrong Foundation that former bicyclist Lance Armstrong has created to help cancer survivors.

Livestrong-Nike-Cancelled
NIKE LIVESTRONG DISCONTINUED

The footwear company is pulling the plug on all Livestrong merchandise off of store shelves. I know exactly what all of you are thinking, “Wait a Sec! That means no more yellow Livestrong wristbands?” Yes this is exactly what it means. They are discontinuing all footwear and clothing, so the shoes you just bought last week that retailed over $100 will now be worth nothing. Nike has generated over 100 million in funds to the foundation since 2004 and during the time accounted for about a quarter of Livestrong’s average yearly revenue.

The foundation said that change in its relationship will have no affect on the services it provided to cancer survivors. Nike said they would continue the support in other ways, but they weren’t able to provide specifics at the moment.

The company ended the sponsorship last October after becoming aware to the news of Lance Armstrong using performance-enhancing drugs and lied to Nike for over a decade. Mr. Armstrong is now resigned from chairman of the foundation and dissociated himself from Livestrong.

Stores like Dick’s Sporting Goods and Sport Authority are now severely hurting due to heavy inventory of Livestrong merchandise of exercise equipment and clothing that failed to sell. Consumers have already turned their back on the brand that was once so dominating and meant so much. The foundation that is based in East Austin, Texas, is looking for a new outlook and a way of rebuilding itself to what it used to be. A Spokesperson for the foundation said, “We want to steer a strong and independent course that ensures the long-term health and sustainability of the organization.”

The foundation has derived 1/3 of its budget from corporate and licensing sponsors, 1/3 from events, and 1/3 from general fundraising, according to chief executive Doug Ulman.

Livestrong still has some corporate sponsors, and still in the works for seeking more. “The foundation has taken other steps to reinvent itself, including moving its “call-to-action” day—which was celebrated on the anniversary of Mr. Armstrong’s cancer diagnosis—to May 17, the day that its yellow wristband was introduced.” The foundation has started new relay marathons all throughout Austin, while ending the sponsorship with the Austin Marathon in April after three years being the top sponsor. Nearly 500 runners associated with Livestrong have already raised $250,000 this year.

I just feel that after the foundation was basically led by an imposter is going to be really hard for the company to regain its trust in its consumers and hard to rebuild itself after an impact like this.

WILL THE FOUNDATION BE ABLE TO REBUILD THEMSELVES AFTER NIKE DROPPING THEM?

WILL THIS AFFECT THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICE THE FOUNDATION PROVIDES?

 

Sources:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323855804578511271244741516.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

 

Should GMO Foods be Labeled?

AC61411F7CAC881767D183635744_h316_w628_m5_caFBbaisb

People should know where there food comes from right? Or should they just accept the food that is given to them at their local grocery store or big chain store? I mean after all food is something that your body uses to provide nutrients to your body. Wouldn’t you want to know if the food you were used to was altered in any sort of way. With Monsanto and their GM Crops (Genetically Modified Crops) , which are crops that have been genetically altered by engineering techniques, such as corn or soybeans could be provided to you without you being aware that they are genetically altered and not the original crops that grow from the earth.

Monsanto claims that the Genetically Modified Crops are safe, but how are we to know for sure, but isn’t that what tobacco companies told us about cigarette smoking back in the 40’s and 50’s. Now after years of testing we know cigarette smoking is closely linked to forms of cancer especially of the lungs. Whose not to say in the future that GMO Crops will be closely linked to some disorder or disease. GMO’s have been around for about approxiametly 16 years, with heavy long term research being done mainly by Monsanto, whose research shows that they are safe.

There have been other research that says otherwise, such as research done by Michael Antoniou of Earth Open Source and Dr. Giles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caan in France.  Their research states that glyphosate and 2-4-D found in the GMO’s pesticides create  lots of health problems such as birth defects, neurological imbalances, cancers, embryonic deaths, and DNA damage.

Monsanto states they are opposed to current initiative to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from Genetically Modified seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks because such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts. Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and organisms in the United States has been proposed but not been made into a bill or law on the national level. Many countries have actually banned Genetically Modified Organisms such as Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, and South Australia.

I mean what was wrong with the way these crops were naturally created in the first place. Either, consumers should have the option of knowing whether their crops were genetically modified or not, in the same way there are standards on whether stuff is organic or if an product doesn’t contain gluten.

So do you think that products should be labeled GMO or not? What are your thoughts about Genetically Modified Crops in general?

 

Sources:

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.html

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-labeling.aspx

http://www.naturalnews.com/038544_GMOs_solution_Monsanto.html

Beef Prices at an All-Time High a Good Thing?

In the recent months, commodity prices have soared to record highs, with the sharpest increase being in the price of beef. The reason for this increase is partially due to last summer’s drought, but it is much higher than most analysts predicted. This has begun to affect the profits of large restaurant chains such as Burger King, Wendys, and most importantly McDonalds.

1C7301038-130509_angus_hmed_1213p.blocks_desktop_smallIn early May, McDonalds announces that it would remove its Angus Third Pounders from their menu. The company said the removal of this burger was done to make room for other food options, but most experts agree that the profit margins are too low for beef items like these to remain profitable.

This has resulted in McDonalds and other restaurant chains to begin to retool their supply chain to put a heavier emphasis on chicken products, which is more profitable than beef. McDonalds has already begun to roll out new items such as the premium chicken wraps. This will definitely be more costly in the short run, but with rising prices, and more health-conscious consumers, it is a good long-term strategy.

With obesity at all time highs, and consumers becoming more health-conscious, this rise in beef prices could not come at a better time. Chicken is much healthier that beef, having significantly less calories and fat. With chicken prices being low, this could benefit both the restaurants and the consumer.

This situation can be compared to gas prices hitting an all time high in 2008.  Once prices hit the high, there was a sudden demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles, planes, trains, etc. They use less fuel, are much more efficient, and produce significantly less emissions that harm our environment. Similar to beef prices, consumers had no reason to switch to the better option until it became cost-effective.

In any industries of this size, change has to be gradual. Switching from beef to chicken is easy for consumers. On the contrary, in order to fulfill demand, restaurants like McDonalds have to completely re-tool their supply-chain. Farms need to change their facilities to accommodate more chickens, processing plants need to change all their machinery, and restaurants need to change how they cook and prepare the final product.

I personally believe that this will benefit both the profit-minded producer, along with the health-conscious consumer. The fast food world is changing, and these companies know that innovation is essential to adapt to the changing taste buds of consumers.

What is your eating preference at these fast food chains? Do you think this rise in commodity prices is a good thing? Have you become more health-conscious?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/wheres-beef-mcdonalds-dropping-angus-burgers-us-menu-1C9864163

How The Light Bulb Got Its Groove Back


incandescent_light_bulb
LED_Bulbcfl_light_bulb

In the 19th century, the only type of bulb available was the incandescent light bulb. This bulb was “the biggest thing since sliced bread” and incredibly effective at its job. Unfortunately for the light bulb, the business world seems to continuously search for improvements or replacements of the once great predecessor. Today, the incandescent light bulb seems like an antique compared to the variety of light bulbs available. Consumers can choose now choose from incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, HID (high-intensity discharge), and LED (light emitting diodes) light bulbs. Each light bulb usually provides a longer life and brighter light than their respective predecessors. Consumers also now have the option to choose from a variety of light types (i.e. warm, cool, natural) and whether they dim or not. At a certain point, a consumer can be quickly flooded with and drown in the massive amount of information and options of light bulbs.

At this point, someone may be thinking to themselves “why should I care about light bulbs?” I’ll admit that when considering a single light bulb the selection of said bulb would not save someone or a company millions of dollars, but an impact will be evident. The average person, especially not a company, does not utilize a single light bulb. Let’s consider an average home to use for as example: three bedrooms, two bathrooms, one kitchen, one dining room, etc. Each room requires at least one lighting fixture, and each fixture uses three light bulbs (if we stay on the conservative side). All these rooms and fixtures amount to a possible minimum of 30 light bulbs.

LED

Compact Florescent

Incandescent

Price per bulb

$ 35.95

$ 3.95

$ 1.25

Life Span

50,000 Hours

8,000 Hours

1,200 Hours

Kilowatts per year

329

767

3,285

Annual Oper. Cost

$ 32.85

$ 76.65

$ 328.59

Now imagine the impact this has over the possible minimum of bulbs established earlier. Although a single light bulb, or even light bulbs in general, might not seem to have a large impact on finances, this myth is quickly proven false. Buildings owners, whether residential or commercial, must take into consideration the price of and the operating costs of light bulbs into their expenses. This affects large buildings even more because of the massive amount of light bulbs in use at any given times. The light bulb is no longer solely symbolic of an idea and can now come to represent money, or $$$.

How could something so small and seemingly insignificant come to have such a large impact on the financial aspect of households and businesses? Should the government require homes and businesses to replace current light bulbs with more efficient ones? Would the requirement even be worth the hassle?

 

http://business.time.com/2013/05/09/long-live-the-lightbulb/

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=lighting.pr_lighting_landing

http://www.megavolt.co.il/Tips_and_info/types_of_bulbs.html