Rick & Morty
Excellent read. Regarding your point on competitive differentiation, I believe that the use of 3D printing technology will definitely make the space more competitive…which for us consumers, is a good thing. Although I am not an expert on furniture design, I imagine that there must be some costs (e.g., machinery, material cost, etc) that may make it difficult for smaller entrants to compete effectively in the market. If 3D printing is able to drive down the costs so that the main competitive factors are more around creative design that comes from human minds, then I think that the end result will be more compelling products for all of us to enjoy.
Great read! With open innovation, I think that LEGO can position themselves beyond the toy category, and perhaps into the “creativity training”/prototyping category to remain relevant to both kids and adults. By moving some of their designs beyond physical blocks to the computer screen, LEGO is already allowing for less friction and more design options. Since they already have a “hero” product in their famous little building blocks, they can theoretically choose to move into any area they want (digital, 3D printing, etc) and take over the “physical open-innovation” space as a whole.
Great read that resonated strongly with me, especially your point on using machine learning to underwrite risk (at my previous company, we were renting out much more expensive items – luxury watches – and underwriting was always top of mind for us). While the use of AI to predict the “quality” of the rentees may lead to unfair practices, I believe it is a necessary step that RTR needs to take in order to protect their downside. RTR can also structure its product offerings in ways to allow riskier newcomers to the business to participate while mitigating their risk (e.g., allowing them to start only in the lower-level tiers and then adjust their privileges as they demonstrate patterns of good behavior). This can also lead to additional data for their AI machine to crunch and evolve with.
Fun LittleRead! I personally am not too worried about the technology generating more copycats than innovators. An easy comparison that comes to mind are LEGOs – despite the fact that LEGO sets come with pre-drawn designs and specifications, it hasn’t stopped people everywhere from building their own creations. From our experiences in FIELD, we have seen how innovation is much more likely to occur by taking thoughts from a group rather than through individual brainstorming, allowing the creative value of LittleBits and open imagination to far outweigh any worries of rote mimicry.
I do think that there is additional value beyond that of a training/educational tool. Given its flexibility, I see it playing the same role as software code has played for the slew of app designers and programmers we have seen rise up over the past decade – LittleBits eliminates the friction points that used to make iterating through physical product prototypes time-consuming and difficult.
What a click-bait title (joking, but it clearly worked on me), but great read with excellent examples and points of view. The point you brought up about blockchain flipping the traditional value creation structure upside down is something I hadn’t thought of before. Given its enhanced value-hoarding effectiveness within an open platform, should we expect to see more open-source structures in the future, or will the control benefits of closed systems still entice creators to at least begin with those kinds of systems? Also, how will the new value structure impact the creation of applications on these new platforms? It seems that one of the reasons we have seen such a large proliferation of apps over the past few years is due to the “instant-wealth” dream that infected so many developers. Will it be more difficult to attract these kinds of products if the value is now possessed by the owners of the platform?
Regardless, I am super pumped to hear that I may, in fact, not lost all of my money from my Ethereum speculation…
Great read! I personally am more bullish on the prospect of customization over mere manufacturing cost savings. As the beauty market becomes ever more competitive, and as consumers develop greater desires to feel “special and unique”, I think that customization will play a huge revenue-generating factor, especially if it can be delivered more easily with 3D printing technology. However, your point on Chanel’s snail-like pace is duly noted, and given the fact that 3D printing for the purposes of customization is still such a new idea, I believe that Chanel and other large-scale companies will be slow to act.
Very cool topic. I am especially convinced by the idea of using 3D printing to turn otherwise unappetizing foods (e.g., insects) into more appetizing forms. While I have no doubt that the use of this technology will become prevalent in households and many small to medium tier restaurants, I doubt that it will be used by the higher-tier, Michelin-starred establishments that emphasize complexity and innovation over mere convenience. I suspect that Paco Pérez uses his Foodini not so much for operational efficiency, but more for the fact that 3D printing food is still such a novel concept. Once that concept becomes more mainstream, I expect the use of this technology will be used much less frequently in high-end dining or, at most, in very minor ways.
Nice piece Geek Squad. I agree that the lower level work currently done by junior lawyers is definitely susceptible to the AI technologies mentioned here. Regarding your point on law firms becoming commoditized and undifferentiated, I expect that firms will turn to emphasizing the expertise of their senior lawyers. However, that brings up the question of whether we will soon see a dearth of senior lawyers given that the junior ones are being displaced. I’m not sure how much expertise developed by senior lawyers is dependent on the the rote work they did in their early days, but if that is indeed a path they traditionally have to go through, then I would question what ways we can bring them up to speed now that the rote work will soon be replaced by machines.
Great piece on a phenomenon highly relevant to our generation. While Gucci has definitely proven to be perhaps the most adept at finding success with our demographic, the question remains whether they can maintain their strong position even as the market passes the baton from millennials to Gen Z, a group that is already developing preferences that are different from the generation before it. Given that machine learning depends highly on the data it consumes, it is unclear whether the even Gucci’s analytics software will be able to capture shifts in trends if they occur too drastically. At the end of the day, I have to agree with Mr. Bizzarri that the creativity from human input is still needed, especially in the world of high fashion.