I enjoyed this timely article. Given that many of the users that are currently using Juul are minors, I am interested in what you are thinking might be channels for open innovation. Anonymous inputs on an online may be helpful, but perhaps a more structured study would be more definitive and credible.
I think it is possible for Juul to transition from its current negative perception to a positive more “medicalized” image. For example, though recreational use of marijuana is still controversial among the American public, medical marijuana is significantly less controversial; Marijuana for medical use (e.g. nausea from chemotherapy) is now in general seen in a more positive light (compared to the historically negative association with recreational use.) I believe Juul must conduct legitimate research on uses such as delivery of vitamins etc, and then must deliver data to the public about how Juul can be used as a wellness treatment or health aide if it wants to attain legitimacy in the public’s eyes.
Thanks for writing this great article.
The introduction of the lower priced model 3 is especially interesting, in that Tesla seems to be introducing these lower priced cars partly as R&D mechanisms (to increase data available to Tesla). I hope the lower price point will not mean compromises in safety that can lead to injuries or fatalities. I believe Tesla should not brand its cars as autonomous until its technology has been perfected and highly tested. Additionally, if a car is branded as fully autonomous its owners could put it to many uses: including transporting elderly, mentally ill, children, or physically handicapped persons in the car unsupervised. Over the last two years I’ve worked with many kids in the Palo Alto area and heard several mention that they might not even need to learn to drive because they believe fully autonomous cars could be commonplace by the time they reach driving age! Tesla must also make clear which, if any, of these situations (or populations) are intended uses of the autonomous vehicle and which uses pose danger.
Thanks for the great read. I agree with you that Chanel can benefit from 3D printing especially in terms of customization. I see that Chanel is currently using it on limited items; I believe if Chanel continues to use it as a complement to or part of some of its fashions it can brand the 3D printing as modern or “21st century.” However, I believe part of Chanel and other Haute Couture’s allure is the aspirational, hand-made or hand-designed, limited quantity, aspect of their items.
I believe 3D printing can significantly transform the lower priced segments in the retail industry, however, I believe the high end brands would benefit from continue to carry mostly traditionally made clothing. I believe 3D printing could come to be come to be viewed as synonymous to “machine produced” a label I imagine any consumer of Haute Couture would shun.
Thanks for writing about this interesting technology. Buoy is an interesting idea and certainly has potential to be helpful in the overburdened current healthcare system. There are many algorithms that physicians follow and automating many of these algorithms into a tool such as Buoy seems like it could be promising.
However, I believe there are some concerns that need to be addressed with a technology likes Buoy. To begin, many patients I’ve treated often come stating that they believe they have “x infection” or “Y illness” but with the caveat that they googled their symptoms, and they know google is not a doctor.
My concern would be that with Buoy, patients will try to self-diagnose, and assured by the fact that Buoy is a sophisticated, AI based device, they would go on to self-treat. This could lead to two concerning outcomes. One could be poor outcomes for the patient. The other could be increased liability for the physician. If a physician recommends Buoy or a similar device to their patients, they may have to shoulder some, or all the liability shall something go wrong. Physicians have become overburdened by an extensive amount of documentation, requests for electronic refills, e-consultations and the like, and I am not sure many physicians would want to use Buoy as a substitute for their judgement, especially if they are held liable for the negative outcomes that result. Buoy, I believe, could function better as an aide to physicians or mid-level practitioners to speed up data gathering during patient visits. The physician or medical provider would be better equipped to look at Buoy’s recommendations but take these with a grain of salt. After all, they have the requisite training to question Buoy.
Despite Buzzfeed’s desire to foray further in the news segment, I believe Buzzfeed should stay focused on what made it an internet sensation: social media, entertainment news, and the like. Buzzfeed does not need to become all things for all people. I believe it will be difficult for Buzzfeed to swing its reputation over from pop culture mecca to hard-hitting investigative news source in the near term. Credible news sources require significantly vetting sources, fact checking and rechecking. Further, reputable news sources and their anchors are held to high standards (e.g. Brian Williams’ suspension from the NBC nightly news after the Iraq reporting scandal) and it would be extremely difficult for Buzzfeed to hold often anonymous contributors to anywhere near these standards. Further, given Buzzfeed’s historical perception as “entertainment news”, I believe Buzzfeed’s news will be even more painstakingly scrutinized by the public and other media. Though Buzzfeed’s open source platform may be a great way to get “tipped off” on interesting stories and topics, I believe the time necessary for the Buzzfeed staff to vet and fact check the news stories will outweigh the benefits.
Great Article. As a daily wearer of glasses (and owner of several pairs), I believe eyewear is also going in the “fast fashion” direction, in that consumers want high quality, affordable eyewear, that they can throw out after a year (e.g. if their prescription changes). Warby Parker and similar brands offer customers the choice to personalize their glasses in many ways ( pick the color, style, type of lens etc) and also offer affordability and a money back guarantee if the customer does not like the frames within the first 30 days.
With 3D printing, I am not sure the increased cost will be something customers are willing to take on. I do think there could be some initial sales with 3D printing given the novelty and personalization, however, I do not know if it is sustainable. I believe those looking for high-end glasses would prefer “hand-crafted” or “hand-curated” over “3D printed.”