The prospect of 3D printing becoming more integrated in healthcare is exciting. I do believe that outsourcing 3D printing may prove useful in the beginning, as it would help hospitals and health systems develop a more robust, supporting case for direct investment in technology. In time, I trust that there will be growing proof of additive manufacturing’s relevance in the context of medical procedures. I am eager to see how patient care standards may evolve as a result.
This was a fun read. Would I be influenced to purchase a fashion item that was manufactured via additive manufacturing? I personally would not. That being said, fashion, especially high fashion, is about exclusivity. I can definitely see 3D printing helping to differentiate a given item and enhance the sense of exclusivity felt by a fashion-obsessed consumer. I am intrigued by Vojd’s plan to license manufacturing programs to other brands — it seems like an innovative approach to making returns on capital expenditure in a timely manner.
Thanks for sharing, Jason. I believe that the most relevant business case for open innovation at a behemoth like IBM pertains to driving engagement and product awareness. While other firms may use open innovation to, well, innovate, I believe that IBM is less inclined to step outside of their organization for such purposes, as they are aiming to insulate their credibility and potential future success “claims.”
Cool read, Ahmed. Valve is wise to get content creators and influencers on their side. In accommodating developers through reasonable pricing, for instance, Valve is definitely building its brand credibility, as well as developers’ affinity for the brand. This is a smart move because when Valve works to build its product offerings, network effects will already be in play, which will presumably work to their advantage. I am curious how new entrants in the VR space will lure developers away from the likes of Valve.
This is a tricky, yet important topic. You addressed the sensitivity surrounding censorship, which is what I am also wary of. AI can indeed help people, and companies, operate more efficiently. Nevertheless, the potential for context-specific error is real, specifically because like in this particular case, it can result in a company distorting the voice of even its most supportive content creators. Therefore, it is somewhat of a slippery slope. The relativity of offensiveness, for instance, makes it particularly difficult to decide what warrants being pulled. If YouTube “hushes” the wrong person, there could be significant backlash.
This was a fascinating read — I, too, wonder how Sephora will overcome the challenges posed by the testing retail industry. While I realize that customer engagement is critical, I wonder if the AI investments Sephora will only “pay off” by delighting existing, loyal customers. In other words, I am skeptical of this technology serving as a point of differentiation in the eyes of new, non-loyal customers. I believe Sephora has an opportunity to expand its AI efforts and focus on how it can not only enable engagement, but also awareness and acquisition.