Amazing mission and process — not to mention customer focus. While Clover’s mission based approach is clearly behind their innovation process, I think it also helps that trends in the restaurant industry (such as better choices, more customization and increased engagement from guests) are also fully aligned by having a robust and lightning fast innovation process in place. I too have questions regarding the ability for the company to scale this process, however. For the company to continue to engage its customers and markets in the same way, I can’t imagine this innovation process being centralized…but would replicating this on a local level make any economic sense at all? I’m not sure that it would.
Thanks for the contribution — I had no idea about the ebola research that you referenced and I suspect this is something much of the world would like to know about. In the case of Zika, it’s great to see the progress that can be made when private industry/regulation are on the same page…I doubt there’s anyone in the world that’s against using existing knolwege to create life saving cures in an expedited manner. With that said, if the paywall model doesnt work, I think its incumbent upon us to determine another way to monetize this research/hard work in the event that it leads to something truly valuable…the individual that discovered that data in 1982 deserves compensation for their work in any case.
This was fascinating — thanks for the submission. While the Archinaut project strikes me as somewhat “pie in the sky”, the company’s AMF product makes endless economic sense. I’m not sure what one of these spacebound printers cost, but I can’t imagine it would take many months for this product to pay for itself many times over given the elimination of stocking various replacement parts / items. My question here is whether Made in Space has truly distinctive technology — is there special patented tech required to make a standard commercial quality 3d printer function in orbit? In my mind, this is key.
Thanks for the submission! While the topic is certainly interesting, I come away a little unsure on whether you hit the heart of what the company needs to address in the coming years vis a vis machine learning. While it’s concerning they’re bleeding cash, this is really more of a capital structure issue. As such, I’m uncertain as to whether they’re bleeding cash because their technology is no good or is it simply that they have a difficult capital structure situation? I have no doubt there is a need for cyber defense, but I’m not clear from this reading on HOW Darktrace is using machine learning to improve on existing technologies.
Nice work — I have never even considered the assistance of ad fraud, but it’s very clearly something that could become a huge problem as more and more of advertising budgets migrate to highly cost efficient digital advertising. I for one am skeptical that this is a problem that can truly be successfully combated — it seems to me it would be rather simple to use bots to fraudulently click through advertisements and yet extremely difficult to detect this activity. The only hope would seem for big players in the industry (like P&G) to collaborate in an attempt to stay ahead of fraud technology (as difficult as that may be in practice).
I think the concept of additive manufacturing / 3D printing in the mass manufacturing world is interesting but ultimately doesn’t seem feasible or valuable to me in the context of shoe manufacturing. While the benefits are obvious and many in the prototyping process (and potentially for bespoke and niche products where this manufacturing can become a part of the consumer experience), they’re less clear in mass manufacturing. As we all learned in the Nike case, labor is the largest driver of COGS (not materials), so I’m unsure the material savings from additive manufacturing would realistically over the high upfront cost of these technologies.