Loved reading this article, especially right after reading about Nike’s own 3D printing endeavors from Alexandra’s post. I had not even considered the fact that 3D printing might enable for manufacturing to come back to the US, or just closer to where the products are actually sold. I think this could be HUGE! Not only will there be a reduction in cost, with less transportation cost, but there might also be a qualitative/emotional cost when it comes to people knowing there product was made right there. I can’t even imagine going into an Adidas store in Panama, getting my feet sized, and getting shoe printed right there. In my opinion this experience would definitely give an edge to Adidas over other shoes. That said, I think if the quality is not there, everything else is irrelevant. Adidas will need to make sure that the 3D printed elements actually hold the same quality.
I had not idea Nike was working on 3D printed shoes, so learning about this work was insightful. I think its always important for companies to explore new technologies and leverage partnerships. Thus, I think its positive that Nike is already working on functional prototypes of 3D printed shoes and, even more, that they are doing so with an expert in the area like HP.
That said, to answer your question about going even more deep into 3D printed and implementing it into different types of products… I am of the opinion that this would not be a good idea. The 3D printing world is still relatively young. The manufacturers of 3D printers are still reducing prices and increasing performance in enormous rates, thus it would make more sense for them to wait. Start experimenting without a huge company-wide investment.
Open innovation at large pharma companies is a tricky thing. Being an innovation consultant in Cambridge, I constantly had projects for companies like Takeda that would come to us asking for “innovation”. On the surface, all the moves that Takeda is doing seemed like a good thing. It seems that they can make their R&D faster and better with these new practices. That said, I would be curious to dig deeper and see how it is actually being used and implemented and if there have been any mayor discoveries coming from these programs. Up until now, my experience has been that these type of organizations just want an “innovation theatre” to show that they are “innovative” but are still leaning on their traditional R&D for their actual work.
While I am not a user, I have followed ElleVest for a while. While working at Fidelity, I –along with a few woman in my floor– started a group called “Invest Like a Girl” to help each other out with our personal investments. We felt that the investing world has a huge barrier to entry. We wanted more support in the process of making our first investment and a community feel. Thus, I think that the mission ElleVest is after is very important. That said, I am not sure that they should limit the target population to woman. To me, it is just a more human approach to investing. One that understands is users and is welcoming to all the situations in your life. When thinking about AI and your question of can AI deliver better results, I really don’t know. Like Prof. Loveman said, never say anything stupid about the stock market. Getting Alpha some would argue is impossible. What I do think is possible is using the technology to better understand patters in our lives and account for them.
Ah. And we come back to the BIG question: Can machines be creative? As a designer and lover of art, I have a very hard time thinking that technologies can and/or should ever replace the human intellect. When it comes to matters of efficiency or operations, I really appreciate leveraging technologies like AI. However, reading a Buzz Feed article that was written by a computer and revised by a human just does not seem appealing to me. Am I so predictable that a computer knows what I want or would like better than my family, friends or even myself? AI technologies are getting so powerful that the truthful answer is: probably, yes. That said, that is not a world I want. Just something to keep in mind about the irrationality of human thought.
Oh, Comcast! I can’t even say Comcast without thinking about how poor their costumer service is. In fact, I was one of those “cord-cutters”. That said, I was hopeful reading your post. I think you make a very valuable point when you argue that some of the more traditional large companies are actually the ones that need AI the most and could benefit the most from it. They already have the scale and the market share, if they could improve costumer service and other parts of the experience with technologies like AI, I think they could avoid disruption and effectively evolve into the connected world. That said, I am still a bit skeptical. Effectively using and implementing new technologies will require a change in organizational structure and culture, and I think Comcast will have a hard time transitioning to this. What do you think?
As a tennis fan, I found this article very interesting. I watch the Wimbledon every year, so I am definitely in the population of people that this technology is trying to protect. That said, I am a bit confused as to why the website is so important. I get most of my Wimbledon content from google or ESPN. Are they feeding from the Wimbledon website? Overall, I do think that cyber threats is something every organization will need to think about. Most large traditional organizations only really consider taking the necessary steps after a disaster (take Target’s for example), but its great that technologies like IBM Watson are doing this in a way that is more efficient.