Thanks MS for this well-documented article on an unexpected impact of digitalization.
Despite potential negative impacts, I’m convinced that mobiles greatly helped raised awareness about migrants among western population, thanks to videos, live reporting and pictures. But this is of course not enough to solve this humanitarian disaster.
Thanks Stephen for this interesting article!
I agree with you and the comments above that focusing only on this thermostat can’t be an option for Nest: too expensive compared to savings, too niche. However, Nest has an enormous advantage in the overall smart home market that it should leverage, not only through partnerships, but also through new products development.
Thanks abcdefg for this interesting post!
I’m convinced that the historical model of individual car owning is not meant to stay forever, and a service like Getaround is probably a good alternative in the short term,
However as noted above there are still some elements to consider:
– privacy issues linked to GPS tracking
– insurance issues
– frictions linked to the installation of the box
– low bareer entries for other actors willing to enter this market
but in any case, this example is a great opportunity to challenge our views on car ownership!
Thanks Kristina for this great article which discusses a company so involved in the day to day life of students like us!
I’m impressed to see all the efforts in dgitalization that you describe here, and I’m convinced that it will definitively give an edge to Domino’s in this competitive environment.
However, in line with the comments above, I would be concerned about the long term trend of pizza consumption, especially outside the US. Domino is directly threatened by underlying trends in the food industry: customers looking for healthier options, quality and reliable sourcing, organic food, local products, renewed interest for cooking at home…
Besides, from an ecological point of view, I’m not sure that food delivery is a long term solution neither.
Now that Domino’s is equipped with these strong digital tools, it should leverage them in its reflexion about its long term strategy.
Thanks HCL for bringing this interesting subject on the table!
I totally agree with the observation: going to concerts and festivals and seeing a sea of bright mobile phone screens in front of the performer is really desapointing, and totally ruins the atmosphere.
However, I’m not convinced by the answer brought by Yondr, in addition to the concerns you very well explained in your article:
– Like Dev, I wonder who would be ready to pay for this? A concert hall like the Bataclan has a capacity of 1,500 people, and there is a concert almost every day. Getting equipped with Yondr would cost 365 x 1,500 x 2 = around 1M€!
– I’m also concerned by the customers’ perception. If I was forced to use this item I would very much have the feeling that the artist does not trust its fans, and needs to use a third party equipment to fight them. For me, a simple message at the beginning of the concert, and awareness campains in the press, should be enough, if we use the assumptions that people in the room are mostly favorable to the artist’s best interests.
Thank for this well-documented article!
I agree that some coffees are clearly in the luxury category and reach very high prices. But I think the consumers of these types of coffees are less sensitive to price increase. What would really frightened me if I was JVA would on the contrary be the large market of daily basic coffee consumers, who would probably be much more sensitive to price variability.
Also, I’m not convinced that genetically modified coffee is the best way to go. While long-term effects of GMOs are still not fully undestood, there are probably other solutions to explore, like taking sustainability initiatives, or reducing costs other than raw coffee (for example through supply chain optimization, overhead costs reduction, packaging simplification…)
Thanks Sharif for this interesting post!
I totally agree with you that a wealthy and powerful institution like Harvard should play a major role in sustainable investment allocation, to support industries and sectors which have a positive impact on the economy and the environment, and on the contrary avoid investing in sectors with demonstrated negative impact.
However, aggressively and immediately divest from fossil fuel would be in my opinion a mistake. First, as noted in the comments above, all fossil fuel companies are not evil, and some of them are necessary to the economy. Second, it’s not enough to divest from a sector: you must make sure that substitutes to this sector already exist. For example, we can’t stop all activities in fossil fuels as long as convincing, efficient and sustainable other energy resources have not been found.
This is why although I’m convinced that on the longer term, Harvard should consider divest from fossil fuels, it should not give in to current pressure, and should divest progressively from selected areas of fossil fuel, while looking to other but still profitable substitute areas like renewable energies.
Thanks Doug for pointing out this non-intuitive but frightening relationship between global warming and the rise of ISIS.
The logical cause-effect relationship you lay out between both phenomenons is interesting and convincing, and I totally agree that nations should gather their forces to fight climate change.
However, these initiatives will by nature have a long-term impact, while the fight against ISIS alos commands immediate and short-term actions.
Besides, I am not convinced a project with the military as a customer is the only way to achieve efficient results. The civil society, NGOs and private sectors have also the capabilities and incentives to reach this goal.
Very interesting post!
AMR case is especially interesting and complex because AMR is in a contradictory position, where its own activity negatively impacts its environment and hence threatens its future capability to operate. For example, most tourists visiting Cancun will reach the city by plane, with a huge carbon footprint impact. Then the activity of the resort itself is endangering its environment.
There are clearly three stakeholders here, each of them bearing a part of the responsibility: Mexican authorities, private tourism companies, and tourists.
I totally agree with the posts above that the impacts of climate change largely exceeds the private actors’ responsibilities and capabilities, and must be addressed in a partnership with the Mexican authorities. Tourists’ awareness must be raised both by tourism actors and authorities. The tourism actors must deploy all their possible efforts to reverse their negative impact on their environment. I also pragmatically think that they should preventively consider investing in other regions less impact by global warming on the short-term, to ensure future revenues.
I’ve found this study on global trends in coastal tourism interesting to push the reflexion further: http://www.responsibletravel.org/resources/documents/reports/global_trends_in_coastal_tourism_by_cesd_jan_08_lr.pdf
I’m a huge fan of Elon Musk’s visionary mindset and aspirational willingness to change the world. I’m convinced that electrical car is the future of car, and that Tesla and Elon Musk have played a key role in boosting R&D and customers’ adoption in this field. And I agree with some posts above that electrical cars, despite the fact that they require the use of lithium batteries and still need to be charged via outside sources of energy, still have a reduced impact on environment compared to any other kind of cars. So if we really need to use cars, electrical cars are probably the most environment-friendly way to go.
However, a second step into reducing the impact of transportation on climate change is to question the very necessity of cars, at least as we use them today, that is in a model where everybody owns his or her own car, that he or she uses everyday for all types of trips. I’m convinced that there are other ways to think our relationship and need for cars.
Tesla has already provided an answer, by exploring the possibilities offered by self-driving cars, and using them to implement car-sharing solutions: when not using their car, Tesla’s owners could chose to add it to Tesla’s shared fleet, and make it available for use to other users, with the car autonomously finding its way towards other users.  Car-sharing would allow to reduce the total number of cars needed, and hence would reduce the impact on the environment linked to cars productions.
More generally speaking, alternatives to cars should become the norm, especially in densely populated cities, which should focus instead on public transportation to reduce the need for cars.