I had no idea that additive manufacturing was as advanced to make housing structures! One of my primary concerns with this application is how stable the end product would be. Given how nascent 3D printing still is, do we trust such a technology to create stable homes for us to live in? I am not sure how the general public would accept such innovation at this point in time. However, I see many benefits for this innovation, including elimination of wasted materials, reduced labor costs, shorter construction time–just to name a few. To your point on utilizing the technology to help individuals in need, I think this is the perfect place to begin deploying technology. You can build scale and begin penetrating the housing market by offering the service to those in need and are more agnostic to how the house is made.
I thought this was a very interesting topic. While Sonova is the clear market leader in this industry, I agree that the barriers to entry are quite low once competitors are able to overcome the hurdle of using 3D printing technology. One way the company will be able to maintain profitability is to cut costs. However, I’m not sure if moving to an e-commerce model is the solution–this will not necessarily work for consumers, as part of the value proposition here is to offer intricately designed aids specific to each individual’s ear shape. This level of specification would be difficult to serve through a digital channel and may take much longer to deliver the product to the end consumer. On the opposite end of the spectrum, having a physical 3D printer at each doctor to create hearing aids on the spot would prove to be too costly in the near term to be a viable solution. As a result, I think there will be a trade-off between cutting costs and decreasing customer lead time.
Fun and interesting topic! I never realized how LEGO was utilizing open innovation to source new ideas, but I think this is a great idea. In doing so, the company can make sure to continue staying relevant and keep up to date with changing pop culture trends with its new products. There are additional benefits to this as well that I would consider, such as reducing the need for a comprehensive internal design team–instead, LEGO is only paying 1% of royalties to external sources!
In response to your question, I think this type of innovation will definitely help LEGO retain share of free time spent by children versus digital media and smartphone usage. As children increase digital media usage, the company could perhaps incorporate an interactive media component to its products. Ways to do so could include putting assembly instructions and ideas in online interactive videos on the LEGO website, or creating an open innovation gallery online where children can submit pictures of their own creations.
Fascinating topic. I completely agree with your concerns around consumer privacy–this is an issue companies will likely never overcome. We’ve seen recent data breaches with Equifax, which resulted in the release of millions of consumer credit history and information. An event of similar scale for 23andMe would likely be impossible to recover from. Another concern I had when reading your piece was around data error and the risk involved in identifying criminal suspects. The company could be susceptible to both Type I and Type II error and would result in a serious ethical dilemma on whether or not using 23andMe data should be allowed in assisting with criminal cases. All in all, I think there are countless opportunities and benefits from 23andMe’s open innovation strategy, especially within the Healthcare sector as you mentioned in your writing.
I think this is a very interesting topic, and a trend that we are starting to see with how millennials are investing their savings. While I see the merits of Morgan Stanley’s implementation of machine learning to further its wealth management practices, I am skeptical of the value proposition that humans bring when making the end decisions for its clients. Perhaps older clients who prefer the human interaction component would prefer this route, but I think younger generations would much rather leave their assets in a passive portfolio while paying lower fees. I think this does remove the ethics question with this younger population, who are more trusting of technology and would feel less cheated into paying for high-fee products that may be pushed on by wealth managers. I am curious as to how this development of robo-advisors will play into the active/passive debate that we are seeing in today’s investment management world. Thank you for sharing!
This is a great post. As big as Comcast is, there are definitely impending risks associated with the shift to live streaming and cord cutting. One of my biggest concerns about the industry is the competition from both live streaming services such as YouTube TV, who is also implementing similar machine learning features based on viewer history, and non-live streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu, and soon-to-be Disney+. Another worry I have with Comcast is that the company may be spreading itself thin in its attempt to reconfigure its value proposition. While the company has penetrated 20 million homes, I believe it will face competitive challenges deploying its physical voice-controlled remote to take share away from incumbent smart homes, such as Google Home or Amazon Alexa, who already offer these integrated solutions. I think this is a very interesting topic and I am excited to see how the industry plays out going forward.