Very interesting read! 3D printing in the shoe space has many advantages including the ability to create hollow figures, reduce waste, and produce overall greater structural integrity. An added benefit to adidas that is slightly overlooked is the transferability of 3D printers themselves. Since there are no specific molds, the switchover cost per machine is marginal implying that adidas can optimize for a dynamic production line that can cater to demand on a live basis, thereby reducing distribution costs on a whole. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how adidas could capitalize on the technology and whether it should bring 3D printing machines in-house and dedicate separate R&D teams to it or continue outsourcing this type of machinery to specialists. If adidas choses the latter, what measures can it take to protect its IP and how much ownership will it really have on its designs.
Great read and content. I have two concerns on blockchain adoption the first concerning the creation of a barrier to entry but the most prevalent one is the leverage the WMT currently has on its distribution network due to scale effects. In essence, WMT can enforce the switch on its channels but not without significant redundancy costs associated with the distribution channel needing to operate on both the old and new systems simultaneously. The bet that WMT is taking here is akin to AAPL removing headphone jacks well before the 3.5mm insert becomes obsolete. My concern is whether this change is premature and how easily could WMT adjust should it deem it to be so.
Great read. Additive manufacturing in the steel space is of great interest to me. Two things concern me in the space specifically: the ability to produce materials with the same structural integrity and performance when compared to traditional manufacturing methods and the ability to perform predictive analytics such that failure becomes predictable. F1 is notorious in its history for producing HS alloys that fail in a brittle way during the races, some of which have caused life-threatening collisions. As we transition into a space that is more high performing (due to the nature of the alloys) and less predictable (due to lack of developed non-destructive testing techniques), will the added conservatism hinder the potential of this process in the short term. Moreover, F1 is considered a breeding ground for consumer car technologies. Can additive manufacturing in F1 be scalable and cost-effective enough to be transferred into the consumer car segment?
Amazing read. As a recent adopter of slack (by force) I found great parallels between what ML is trying to do in this space, and things like Yahoo news digest. There are three risks that I see apparent in this approach. Firstly, users must be actively aware that messages that they open will be used as predictive tools regardless of their utility to the user. The convergence of preference will only be apparent after many an iteration, which could compete against user utility in the short term. Another area of concern is pigeon-holing, where the program might limit visibility to things that users have not historically expressed interest in, even though they might be interesting to the user. This alludes to assumptions regarding dynamic preferences. I suffered this problem after changing industries in work and having my dynamic platform take well over a month to transition in response. Would love to hear your thoughts on these two matters!
Interesting read. I would love to sample the garlic cheese variant but am not too sure about cappuccino crisps. I love the idea of crowdsourcing in the food and beverage industry, particularly since tastes and trends vary geographically. My only concern on the issue is the speed by which Pepsi could get products out to the shelves. In a constantly shifting landscape of products, packaging, and tastes, it seems to me that the product development cycle is the real limitation. Also, I appreciate your recommendations on breadth and the fact that Pepsi should seek cross-applications to less successful product lines. I however wonder how Pepsi could incentivize creative ideas to surface to dated brands (e.g. Quaker) given that crowdsourcing is an opt-in process.
Great read! I would have loved to sample the cheesy garlic bread variant, although am not sure about cappuccino crisps. Overall, I think crowdsourcing in the food and beverage sector is a fantastic idea as long as the product development cycle is lean and quick enough to adapt to constantly changing fashion trends. For example, Lotus biscuits became a hit product in the middle east and everything lotus based was being purchased fanatically. However, that trend only lasted a short while after which the craze faded away. My only concern is can Pepsi react quickly enough to emerging trends such that it is able to get a crowdsourced idea to shelves in time. I really appreciate your recommendation for Pepsi to seek breadth across its product line to transfer crowdsourcing in other areas. And since crowdsourcing is exclusively opt-in, what more could Pepsi do to incentivize innovative ideas to gravitate towards unpopular brands (e.g. Quaker)?