I agree that their business model might be unsustainable over time. I would say that they need to go to the offline world. I believe that music is now a commodity and everyone can get it cheap and quick, so one way to monetize would be to create experiences exclusive to their customers, such as music festivals, ticket selling platforms and souvenirs. The upside on the strategy is that they know who likes what and where they live, so it seems extremely easy to target the right clients.
Thank you for sharing your experience with Clover. As an amateur cook myself, I really enjoy the concept of contributing to the menu and exploring other’s people ideas. It is both a cheap innovation process and a way to connect in a meaningful way with their clients. However, I wonder the problems the company might have. The first thing that comes into mind is consistency. How can they keep an food identity if they are changing so much? What would a client do if their favorite is no longer available. Instead of changing 80% couldn’t they have just one or two rotating options on the menu?
I believe that this is generally a bad move from NASA’s perspective for 2 reasons: First, it creates huge backlogs of ideas, analyzes and data that will demand valuable resources in order to filter and identify what is actually worth their attention. Second, standardization is key in very technical fields. When you host open innovation platform, you risk creating inefficiency and risks instead of innovation and disruption. In the end, would you let your kids embark on a crowd sourced space mission or would you rather have them on engineers that have been doing that for years?
If I am Luxottica leadership I would be very concerned with additive manufacturing. Eyeglasses are one of the highest margin products in existence, as their costs are so low. People can pretty much share their designs and/or Luxottica own designs and create frames at almost no cost at home. In fact, I wonder if 3d printing at home piracy will be perceived as piracy at all among the general population. If you own the equipment, you provide the inputs and you design a product inspired by another one, is that piracy of just DIY?
This is a very intriguing article. Although my initial conclusion was to outsource the capabilities to another company and have GE focus on their core business, as I re-read I started to think whether data collection and analysis shouldn’t be their differential. Let me give one example: suppose they contract IBM do develop an algorithm to collect and analyze data from GE machines around the world, what would hold them from selling this technology to a competitor?
On a unrelated note, I struggle with the ownership of the data and privacy. Collecting that much data from clients might give GE an unfair advantage, for instance, in future bids. GE has huge responsibilities by collecting, storing and analyzing this data and they should be concern with the risks this brings.
Thank you for this article. I am unsure about the feasibility of 3d printing in mass production. However, I do see how additive manufacturing could help Nike create prototypes quicker and therefore reducing costs with R&D and innovate faster. Also, I believe that there is a huge opportunity in 3D printing specific parts of the shoes in store or at home. For instance: it makes sense to produce the most standard parts of the shoe in traditional factory set-up and the insoles at home. One could get their feet measured and print a customized insole that guarantees comfort.