Thanks for sharing MM! Very interesting to know that 1/3 of all the dating apps is actually owned by the same company and that they are essentially creating or for lack of better word acquiring other apps to buy market share. A few thoughts top of mind reading your post… Firstly, I believe that most of the apps are already doing that verification of information with other social media sites as a hurdle to join or match users. These apps include bumble and The League. Also, another was the feasibility of this given privacy laws; for example, unless the individual is required to link their other social media platforms (which might reduce the number of users and we all know that would hurt the app’s network effect!) it might not be possible to access the data.
Interesting article! And very well written thank you for sharing! A few questions were top of mind for me as I read your post. Firstly, how does this method of research and development, which is open to the public i.e. competitors, ensure the same long term competitive advantage that a private patent would provide? Currently, many pharmaceutical companies depend on their blockbuster drugs as you’ve highlighted above and hence pursue such aggressive R&D programs to ensure a full viable pipeline for the next cohort of patented blockbuster drugs? Additionally, would this remove the incentive for other pharmaceutical companies to simply ride off Eli Lilly’s open innovation platform and lower the overall industry’s R&D pursuits and perhaps hurt development of new drugs that could help consumer/patients?
Incredible! So fascinating. Makes me want to go check out the closest Amazon Go store!
In response to your questions…
1) As Moore’s law surmises, the cost of technology falls at en exponential rate. Clearly, Amazon is the disruptor and early early adopter of this technology. Just thinking about how the first ever iphone was only released in 2007 and the sheer proliferation of smartphones and the internet ecosystem over the past decade, I am reminded by the speed at which new technology is diffused and adopted by especially our millennial generation.
2) Given my belief that this technology will become cheap enough soon, I do believe that this “Just Walk Out” technology will be the next phenomenon that takes over brick and mortar establishments that currently sell products which do not require technical sales support, e.g. clothing and apparel, shoes, fast food, etc.
Interesting post Zack! Thank you for sharing.
One thing I struggle with here is the cost feasibility to apply current 3D printing technology to consumer sports shoe manufacturing. Given the relatively low prices one can charge in order to stay competitive (in an industry with fierce competition from Nike and Puma to name a few!), I wonder how long it will take before the technology becomes cost effective enough to replace current manufacturing processes that are done in low cost regions in the world. Additionally, given the humongous number of SKUs Adidas probably has, current 3D printing technology (as I know it and I’m definitely not an expert!) makes it difficult to change from one design to the next.
What a great application for 3D printing! Thank you for the interesting read, George!
This article left me wondering about the ethical implications to the medical / biotechnology community. As we think about “printing” organs and human body parts, where do we draw the line as to what constitutes as “natural” to the human body and reproductive process?