Great essay!! I think that in addition to the arguments you laid out, BMW is in a good position to combat such isolationist as Trump with regards to manufacturing. BMW supply chain is quite diversified so that any single political movement in one country does not impact the entire supply chain. This built in flexibility gives BMW the ability to have multiple options (doomsday vs change output in the US if that would be agreeable). In addition, I believe that BMW benefits from its belief that Trump’s policies will not necessarily follow him in US policy after he is no longer President. As Trump has continued to use Twitter and say incensing things in the news, any single comment is in the news cycle for a shorter period of time and any single company reference has a lower impact. In some ways, BMW may have benefited from one segment of the market by being targeted by Trump in terms of what customers would be willing to pay in order to support a company that Trump has targeted.
Thank you for the interesting essay! I worry about CJ E&M’s ability to depend on China’s user base given the easy to which China was able to ban all of Korean content. While I agree that the Chinese user base should not be ignored by CJ E&M, the company should double down on areas where political conflicts will be lower to ensure that they can broadcast their content. With a digital platform, I believe that CJ E&M should not focus on monetizing it but use it to understand the big data of where their content could be expanded more broadly. I agree with dc’s assessment that ignoring the global market would be a mistake. I also question as to whether CJ E&M is able to sell its content to existing distribution networks, such as Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon, in order to expand broad access to its shows.
Great article! This issue gets at the heart of many discussions we have had in class regarding the impact that Clay Christensen writes about regarding disruptive innovation. I think that the only option for C.H. Robinson is to compete on a digital scale with uberfreight. The technology that uber offers is not so much of an edge at this point in time (there are many flaws with its system) to not try to address as a company how it can use technology to improve its supply chain. The above comments do bring up an important point into how self-driving trucks will impact C.H Robinson additionally. If C.H. Robinson is not willing to making the investing into the digital space and to compete, they may as well harvest their profits because it will be a dramatic fall from the top as they fail to compete in a new digital world.
Fascinating article! Your question about whether Google Glass is a gimmick or can really transform the warehouse is an interesting one. I do worry that the technology is not there and does not offer a large enough improvement to the warehouses with HHTs. As you point out, the battery life is really a major issue that despite some improvements in picking speed, would not really hit the bottom line. More importantly, I worry about how workers will process the information on Google Glass over time, growing to ignore information of the glass when it is purely provided, as opposed to actively seeking out information in the HHTs. I do not see this as the transformative intervention that Google may have hoped for.
Interesting article! You bring up an interesting question as to whether one can truly achieve “bringing back manufacturing” through protectionism policies. For Apple, I do not think these policies will bring Apple to the US unless that is a specific initiative they are hoping for. At the end of the day, Apple owes in shareholders to make the biggest bang for a buck. In light of changing politics, it is obviously better for Apple (per your article above) to move to complete automation within the US. However, if the purpose of these policies are to bring back jobs, I do think that the unintended consequences are destroyed a supply chain, bringing no increased jobs, and increasing prices for an iPhone.
What an interesting article! As the comments above point out, your final question is an important one – will society accept lab grown meat? I do see a world in which lab grown meat becomes the norm especially given the horrible conditions many of our animals must endure in order to provide us with a delicious burger. Vegans have been trying to capture the taste of meat in their foods to attract a larger market and it has been catching on as people as becoming more aware of the environmental and social impact of the meat industry. One particularly successful vegan restaurant is “By Chloe” (in Fenway, I highly recommend!). I do agree that at the end of the day, if taste can compete with normally grown meat, society will be able to accept the general concept of a different avenue of production. Stem cells from cows are capable of making actual muscle and it will be up to the start ups to be able to balance meat vs fat content to get a flavor that can compete if companies play to compete on price.
While Brown Brother’s move to Tasmania may have been successful for its top/bottom line, I do worry about the broader impact of how climate change will impact the wine industry in Australia (and across the world). Your essay highlights the key insights in climate change in the wine industry is an important one. Brown Brother’s decision is not one to be copied by all other wine companies though because it is a short term solution to a long term problem. Given the capital investment and high asset qualities of the wine industry, when paired with the number of years it takes to mature a vineyard, I worry about how successful this strategy will be. Tasmania may have been a wise decision but can be copiable. I would hope that the wine industry (or companies with deep enough pockets) would invest in new technology to be able to continue to create wine in their current climate in the face of changing weather.
The idea that 3D printing can be incorporated into the pharmaceutical industry and change the supply chain is fascinating! Pharmaceutical companies should be quite concerned about FDA approval of 3D printing and the ability for medications in the future to be printed out. However, I take this idea one step further and worry about how this supply chain disruption could impact how patient to doctor to prescription could work in general. Once a “recipe” for medications is available for 3D printing in a standardized way, I wonder whether a model of 3D printing one’s medication in a physician’s office, or even at a patient’s home would be a possible way of delivering care. I worry that the current model of the pharmaceutical industry is this supply chain were to be realized would lead to much lower costs for patients/the medical field but would destroy many aspects of the value proposition that pharmaceutical companies provide. However, such a model could also improve how patients are able to actually receive (fill out) their prescriptions and could generally improve medication adherence and medical outcomes.