Interesting read but I am curious to know how much of their profit margins are they willing to reinvest in the improving production process. Is Patagonia looking at drastically improving the process by reducing the amount of water used and in turn the GHG emitted. I understand that they are looking at cutting transportation cost however it will be interesting to find out how much of their future investment is made towards improving the overall production process at their factories as that seems to be the root cause of the problem.
Very interesting article, but I believe the steps inditex is taking are very reactive in nature instead of being proactive. As you mentioned that the whole industry generates high green house gas (1 kg textile to 23 kg greenhouse gas) I am curious to find out if Inditex has invested in streamlining their production process to reduce this number. I believe a big chunk of this number is attributed to dying, heating and other manufacturing processes hence it would be interesting to know if Inditex has developed procedures to counteract and reduce these emissions. Moreover if Inditex has in fact developed such processes, maybe they can be implemented to the entire industry creating greater sustainability.
Very interesting read! Its so fascinating to see US still export engine for their rockets form Russia. What I am curious about is if ULA is planning on moving toward RLV. RLVs are much more cost effective and with the current successful runs of SpaceX with RLVs , it seems to me that the market is moving towards that trend. And if in the future private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are able to provide cheaper yet safer rockets, what would limit the US govt or Nasa from not using these companies instead of ULA. I guess what I don’t understand is, in spite of being a market leader, why has ULA not been able to develop a stronger position on RLVs.
Really like the article John. However my question to you and Solomon is that although downsizing seems like our only option to reduce cost and protect the margins, how would this downsizing effect our current capacity. Will we still be able to meet the current demand with lower resources and if not how can we be sure that we can regain the lost market share once giga factory comes online. Furthermore, what about the cost of rehiring or training laid off employees once we decide to ramp up our capacity. I agree with Tim’s perspective on why does something as global as “clean energy” have to be restricted to a nationalist policy. Furthermore, how can we guarantee that till the time Giga factory 2 comes online, no other competitor in world will be able to develop a more efficient way of producing solar panels reducing the cost even lower than what we aspire through the factory. And if there is such a competitor in the market (outside of US) , should the US customers still be forced to pay higher prices for solar panels produced in their country. And how would that effect the overall rate of penetration of solar panels.
Really nice read! What I am concerned about a bit is the ease with which Samasource can reduce its asset heavy model. I believe many of these workers require physical training and that with their present skill set they will not be able to understand or implement if trained digitally hence I am concerned about converting this into a low fixed cost business model. Also if we proceed towards other tactics like outsourcing to a training company for the training part of the business, how do we ensure that these training companies do not use their strategic importance in the supply chain to exploit the workers.
I do believe that as long as AI is in the future we should focus on driving maximum value out of this model and try to implement it as much as we possibly can. Ideally, as a society our focus should be on avoiding any future refugee epidemics so that this solution can help the present lot and we do not have treat this as a continuous process.
Really like the article. I do think that 3D printing is an exciting market to venture into and it will form a big part of the “printing” future with additive manufacturing. It can be a good opening for HP to set its ground in a new growing market. While I do agree that expanding 3D printing will not cater to the declining 2D printing sales but I feel that the consumer is moving away from 2D printing by using other digital platforms and that entering into the service industry will not necessarily improve HP’s revenue margins. First services are hard to sell for a fixed price, second moving to subscriber model may require offering a free subscription for a few months which might lead to the free loader problem, third the service industry is not very capital or technology intensive hence there are very few barriers to entry for the competitors making this segment prone to saturation.
Hence I feel that HP should focus more on growing its business in the 3D printing segment. HP can leverage its manufacturing experience to dwell early into the market and become the first mover in an industry that has good future prospects.