• Alumni

Activity Feed

On December 1, 2017, chewy commented on Clever Ed Tech: Breaking Down Barriers :

Thanks for this nice overview of Clever, and how they’ve digitized a supply chain of information in education.

Knowing Tyler personally, I do have to balk at the idea that he’s doing this entirely selflessly. Ultimately, Clever, like all corporations, exists to make money. I feel a bit unsound at the idea that they are making their money from corporations paying for early exposure to young “customers,” who may develop affinity and loyalty for the brand and increase CLV. While reading your write-up it occurred to me that this is exactly what proponents of net neutrality argue against: the ability for money-laden, large corporations to pay their way into our activities, and it feels especially uncomfortable given these are children. Do you have a problem with the corporate revenue model, or do you believe revenue-generating opportunities like preferential treatment for apps who can pay to access children are ultimately what’s needed for the sustainability of for-profit, but for social-good entities?

Good to learn more about the Red Cross, and the nuances behind FbF. Curious: Do you personally believe that FbF is the best option for every market? I do believe it is imperative to bake in some degree predictability and nuance into operations so that every region is not given an equal likelihood for every disaster – an impossible thing to manage, and an inefficient way to allocate resources. However, my mind does jump to incidences where natural disaster came out of left-field: would the reliance on FbF hamper efforts to fundraise and provide immediate relief in those events? I also wonder if you believe the Red Cross does have fantastic, data-based algorithms on which FbF is grounded, should they open that data up and publicize their findings to prompt other entities (NGOs, Governments, Non-Profits) to mobilize around the regions they deem most at risk?

While not knowing much about pharma, this article posed a number of questions for me, that I’m grateful to you for raising. One was around the role of big data, specifically when it relates to patient information. How do drug companies leverage data through companies like IBM, via Watson, when you’d think that HIPPA would prevent easy information flow? And if there is an opt-in, could you see an information bias? I agree that there is a huge opportunity in healthcare for being smart about using data to inform new products, changes, and innovation, but I wonder if this is actually a competitive advantage to companies like Teva if the information is easily accessible, and if it’s not, to what extent reporting bias colors the extrapolations?

Wonderful graphics and bringing light to something that’s in front of our faces, but rarely talked about. It was lovely learning about Intel’s innovation in semiconductors, a technology that we use daily yet is hidden (literally, within hardware, and within discourse). I’m curious: do you think that Intel has an “edge” in terms of innovation? Do you think the advancements they’ve made and historical culture of innovation count as a competitive advantage, especially now that the world sees what they have done and how they operate? It will be interesting to see if Intel continues to operate at the forefront of semiconductor innovation in an increasingly fast, digital world where, as you note, information sharing and product innovation cycle times are increasingly decreasing.

On December 1, 2017, chewy commented on Disruption of Video Game Retailers :

Lots to learn from your essay, thank you for shedding light on a trend I haven’t given much thought to. I’m curious: given the trend towards digital, why do you believe that people still buy physical games? Do you think there is a reason for GameStop to even operate brick and mortar stores, or could they become The Hub for digital game distribution? I wonder this because it’s so capital intensive for GameStop to operate their stores; if it’s a matter of catering to a shrinking audience of physical game buyers, is this enough? Or if it’s a branding / marketing play, would you advise them to shift their focus to more visible locations for marketing purposes (ala LongChamp, for luxury bags)?

On December 1, 2017, chewy commented on Starbucks: the future isn’t brew-tiful :

Well presented – I learned about the effects climate change, particularly the warming of the earth, and how that has affected coffee beans, the core of Starbuck’s business. You advocate for Starbucks to concentrate more on transportation, but I’m curious if you think their efforts, particularly around purchasing renewable energy in the US, is from an intrinsic desire to improve the world or to improve their bottom line? The shift to railways might be an expensive endeavor, although good for the environment. Is it really believable that Starbucks would increase their costs if it doesn’t impact their bottom line directly?