Very cool topic Devin! Thanks for sharing. One question that popped into my mind is how cost effective 3D printing in this context is. I would imagine that while 3D printing presents many speed-related benefits, the cost of highly complex additive manufacturing is still very high, if not prohibitively show, as compared to traditional manufacturing. Who do you think should bear the costs? In addition, is there a way for the Navy to gain expertise through partnerships rather than internal development? It sounds like one barrier to adoption is the existing supply chain structure that current operators are used to and may be difficult to flip. Could the Navy instead join forces with a more nimble private corporation that is more equipped to make headway?
I loved reading this! Thanks for sharing. Coming from a biology background, I feel bioprinting still has a ways to go, especially given the point you raised at the end about regulations. The process of creating a human organ is even more scientifically complex than developing biologics (drug derived from a living organism). Biologics are a class of it’s own and face in-depth regulatory scrutiny due to the fact that not only must the end product or compound be scrutinized but also the process by which the biologic is created. 3-D printed organs will likely also require multiple layers of regulation, as the safety and efficacy test is not as simple as analyzing a compound and measuring dosage.
Very interesting article! I think this is a great idea, not only to reduce risk and cost for the government but also to raise awareness and engagement of important social issues. Americans are likely to want to spend time to help solve pressing social issues, so are more motivated to engage in such projects. It creates a more Democratic society! One question I have is how Challenge.gov is collecting a diverse set of opinions and skills and how they are publicizing this initiative. While I believe our generation is very tech savvy and can be targeted through social media, the older generation may not be as engaged online and therefore, not have their voices heard.
Really fascinating! To answer your question about who is its key competitors, I’d would actually argue that it’s direct competitors are companies such as Emursive (which produces Sleep No More) and Third Rail Projects (which produces Then She Fell). Both of these companies are relatively small franchises today. I believe that Secret Cinema competes in an entertainment niche, and doesn’t directly compete with other large Broadway or Film production companies because those who are enthusiastic about acting are a subset of people who frequent shows or movies for a chill night out. In addition, I don’t view this as a experience customers would repeat on a monthly basis as they would, perhaps, visit the cinema. While costs are likely lower due to the lack of paid actors, because of the immersive element of Secret Cinema, it may be difficult to scale given each show has a fixed number of roles and the narrow target market as well as high customer acquisition costs.
Thank you for sharing! I believe AmazonGO has a place in the market for lower-service, high velocity goods that require less human interaction. The concept is very compatible with the shopping habits of millennials who welcome technological change. However, I still believe on-demand delivery is the way of the future. Given Amazon Prime, I think stores in general will become less as less relevant, so the goal of opening 3,000+ Go stores is questionable. Why would Amazon want to compete with itself? At best, I think the Go stores are relevant in larger cities with high visibility and foot traffic, to help promote the Amazon brand (and further remind us that Amazon is taking over the world)!
Thanks for sharing. One question I had when reading this is the success of the subscription model if (A) They have no academic papers to prove its efficacy and (B) as pointed out in other posts, whether they are really differentiated from the Fitbits of the world. One ideal I had is for Whoop to integrate it’s proprietary hardware with more outcomes focused software programs. For example, could it partner with virtual reality training programs? One company called STRIVR offers immersive training for athletes, signing big users such as the NFL. Professionals may be more willing to shell out a subscription for a premium product, especially if it integrates with what they are already using.