Great post Nico! This was fascinating, I had no idea that the steel industry contributed so much to annual global emissions.
Steel production is a fundamental commodity in today’s world, and I’m curious about a “network affect” that might occur if the price of Steel goes up. What if an alternative becomes popular that has not taken on the costs of reducing their emissions? How does Tata differentiate itself in a world where the steel used is largely invisible to the end consumer? Is there a way for a commodity to be environmentally conscience while also being profitable?
Hey Mark! I’m a huge Nintendo and Switch fan and I loved your article.
One thing that comes to mind about the supply chain issues is how much leverage Nintendo actually has over the supply chain. Looking at their hardware competition, they have Microsoft (Xbox) and Sony (PlayStation) both of which have other electronic devices. This allows them to hold inventory of common electronic components, significantly smoothing any manufacturing issues.
As you pointed out, this has been a significant problem for Nintendo. They only have a few products with a massive spike for demand initially that then tapers off. That’s a nightmare for the rest of the supply chain.
Potentially Nintendo may need a more drastic business model change than sharing data. But sharing data can’t hurt.
Hey Joey. Very interesting post. I do like the diversification idea in order to better prepare for a possible US reigning in of agriculture (which was a hotly debated topic in Arizona). I think I would like to take it a step further and ask about other sources of food for cows. For example, can China also begin importing US corn which is more readily available for export and can also act as actual human food.
To answer your final question, I believe the artificial production of meat and dairy is very far away from being accepted culturally. However, I think that if/when that occurs, the fundamentals of agriculture will have to switch.
Hey Melisa! It’s a well-researched and interesting post. I think I might be more pessimistic about Diageo’s long-term prospects than you are. First, the alcohol industry is already highly regulated and difficult to navigate. I’m worried about a single company’s ability to negotiate international deals anywhere near as profitable as they got in the EU. Second, Diageo will have a difficult time lobbying for special consideration within the UK with so many other issues going on.
I do believe that your suggestions are good, however. But Diageo may have to considering scaling back for the next few years.
To answer your first question, Antidote has an inherent edge over Watson in that you already have willing patients for your trial. With Watson, the pharmaceutical companies would have to pay for Watson to find potential patients, then convince those patients to join the trial. With Antidote, the self-selected list of patients is there for the trial to pick. The cost savings are significant, and may be worth the slight delay.
On your second question, I don’t believe that is Antidote’s role to pre-screen patients for an over-demanded trial. Antidote is simply a match making service, and isn’t responsible for the patient after relaying the name to the research group.
I think Antidote is an interesting idea, but I’m concerned about getting the initial patient pool along with their medical records. Medical record storage is already complicated, and people are hesitant to post their information on non-professional looking sites. I would advise Antidote to start marketing hard.