I think this is a very smart move on NASA’s part not only from an innovation standpoint but to manage costs in a time of funding uncertainty. If open sourcing is done correctly, it can significantly reduce R&D and overhead costs. It gives NASA greater control over the resources allocated to a given project and prevents costs from spiraling out of control with the hope that a breakthrough is just around the corner. In a time when NASA’s funding has come under fire, this is a step to mitigate federal support variability and continue to stay at the forefront of innovation regardless of the political climate.
This is a really interesting example of the applications of 3D printing in the luxury retail space and potential risks associated. I think Safilio can capitalize on consumers general lack of understanding of where their favorite designer glasses are made. I think most purchasers would be quite surprised to learn that their Dior sunglasses are manufactured by the same company as Fendi and even Banana Republic! I believe this lack of transparency in the manufacturing process will benefit Safilio greatly as they will benefit from the future cost reductions without any reputational risk to their brand.
You raise a lot of good points around Disney’s venture into the 3D printing space. I had not considered the risks a company faces in terms of IP infringement as it relies more heavily on creating products using 3D printing. Disney’s IP, in the form of its characters, is one of its most valuable assets and it continues to generate revenue generation after generation. Given this, the need to protect their IP is of the upmost importance to the company. As the domestic and global regulations in the 3D printing space are far from refined, I question whether the risks of IP infringement outweigh any potential benefit from investing in this area.
As a long-time ASOS customer I appreciate this post! ASOS has been an industry leader in innovation around size and style predictions. This adds value to customers who are able to order their optimal size and get recommendations for products they may never have purchased. In addition, this also serves to reduce fulfillment costs for ASOS as customers are a) less likely to return an item if it fits and b) less likely to order multiple sizes if they are confident in the size prediction model. Given that items are frequently two day air shipped from the UK around the world, these cost savings could be significant for the company.
This post highlighted several aspects of the “dark side” of e-commerce that most shoppers are blind to. The growing trend of free returns and free same day shipping obscure the true cost of these services to customers and are detrimental to businesses and the environment. Frequently, the cost to ship an item may exceed the item’s value and this is only compounded if that item has to be shipped to a return center like Optoro. Moreover, the retailer that is partnered with Optoro is only getting a fraction of the product cost back. I think it would be beneficial to both consumers and businesses to increase transparency around the costs of e-commerce returns. Perhaps we would all think twice about returning an item that costs $5.
Looking at the designs that have successfully gone from crowd sourcing to the shelves, they are consistently geared towards adults as opposed to children. I think this is a great way to keep adult fans engaged with the brand and foster a deeper sense of community. LEGO Ideas could also open the market to more parents which could in turn increase the brand awareness with children.
I think your points around LEGO Boost are spot on. It is a smart move to develop a technology focused product line as this helps bridge the gap between the physical toy space and online. In addition, the coding component of the Boost line will appeal to the growing demand from parents for educational toys. However, it is difficult to say if this will all be enough to position the company for success as the world shifts into digital media and entertainment.