Hubble seems to be another example of a business model reliant on sourcing in China/Taiwan and selling in the US market. Manufacturing is a completely different play and they should stick to their strengths and therefore not think about bringing manufacturing in-house. I do however see a large untapped market outside the US, especially in Asia where Hubble can build brand equity and serve a growing set of affluent consumers. I also see their reliance on the largest manufacturer of contact lenses a big risk and I see value for them to diversify their supplier portfolio.
Steps need to be taken at all levels of the supply change, subsidies are vital upstream to ensure that fishermen use sustainable fishing solutions and there also needs to be consumer education to live in a way that adequately compensates for the environmental impact that consumer choices create. As the world reacts to the consequences of their food choices, I think there will be a willingness to pay premium for a carbon neutral meal.
I see big upside in investing in warehousing technologies as fulfillment will be their biggest challenge as they try to scale. Fashion/Cloth rental logistics seem very different from traditional retail and that is why there is tremendous value in creating it. If RTR continues to grow this way , long term, RTR seems like an attractive acquisition target for Amazon with a lot of synergies in play (fulfillment and subscription from Amazon, RTR to expand Amazon’s fashion/rental space).
Very interesting read. With the recent acquisition spree by the major beer names, case in point- ABInBev, it seems likely that there will be further consolidation in the market and the local breweries will get bought out. The smaller brewers do have the advantage of being small and nimble and can use that to their advantage to invest in radical methods to set themselves apart. Im not sure if Andrea’s idea mentioned above would be enough but its a step in the right direction where crazy may actually be what can help them. There also seems to be a change in consumer taste preference with a high demand for premium beer . So a combination of these ideas can help the brewers compete.
While I can see the benefits of integrating IoT into their fleet, IoT is still in its early stages and like most early stage technology would require constant investment to improve and stay up to date to the point where it becomes a significant competitive threat. I agree with Samir that Coca Cola is probably not the best player to do this and I dont see the competitive advantages overcoming the heavy investment and competition that they will face from the big logistic players. I also feel that Coca Cola is probably aware of this and I see this IoT piece as a clever marketing ploy to create some PR and showcase that Coca Cola is cutting edge in their technology solutions.
This was an interesting read. As mentioned, the Chinese market has reached a point that it can just not be ignored by any production house. And while it is an extremely huge market for the hollywood big names, the viewing audience is also evolved to appreciate good films to the point where even some bollywood(the Indian movie industry) movies have been widely accepted in China . So the way I see it, movie houses need to have a multi pronged strategy : hollywood blockbuster movies, create local content and promote movies that really connect with the Chinese consumer market.
E.C. Scott, completely agree there is no such thing as a perfectly secure system. Given enough resources, any system can be broken into. One way to look at this is that an organization’s security systems need to be secure enough that the cost to break into the system far outweighs the benefit of doing so. It is a difficult thing to measure that threshold and but an appropriate risk analysis can help you detect that level and that can allow the organization to invest in security protocols and teams accordingly. In this particular case, equifax failed to consider the risks and therefore had a very low threshold for security breach.
I agree with your point that moving a lot of your security dependencies to a centrally managed architecture, cloud or otherwise, can allow an organization to apply comprehensive system wide updates in a more timely manner. The issue that I see with a lot of organizations with a legacy infrastructure is that it is a massive effort to move their deeply integrated systems to a new platform. It also becomes difficult to justify doing so as it comes at a very high cost and the risk of having system downtimes, especially when there may not a lot of visible business impact.