Really good write-up! I like their pricing model and think it makes a lot of sense. On the point of focus, if the bioink Cellink has developed is truly standardized, then I can see how they might be able to get away with not picking a specific application to go after. However, I agree that they should probably narrow their focus in terms of geography and customer a bit more, especially since I imagine they use a sales force to reach their customers.
I agree with your assessment of the ethical issues. While it might be hard for them as a startup to prioritize working with regulators and their customers, I can see this as a competitive advantage for them if they are proactive in educating all parties about the issues associated with the use of the technology as it could establish them as a trustworthy player and thought leader in the space.
Really insightful piece! I totally agree with you on the benefits of 3-D printing especially along the customization aspect as more and more people strive towards individuality. I’m also skeptical of a truly decentralized approach to manufacturing just because it seems that 3-D printing still can’t be used to make cars at scale cost-effectively. However, I can see how a decentralized approach could be adopted for smaller batches or country specific runs like you mentioned and I imagine that there would be some potential cost benefits around export tariffs as well.
Great write-up! I really like your idea of providing funding to promising indie developers. With so few VR systems out there, there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem where there isn’t enough interest in creating games because there aren’t enough VR gamers and vice versa. I do think that providing that funding to indie developers could serve as a way to grow the supply of games in this ecosystem which in turn will draw gamers to VR.
As an additional data point that this could work, Slack also took a similar approach when they wanted to grow their platform of apps built on top of Slack and raised a $80M fund to fund developers  building on top of Slack which helped them greatly with their platform.
Great write-up! I can see how Netflix faces some of the risks you mentioned that Youtube encountered, but one thing that does help Netflix is that the library of content is generated completely by them and is curated, while Youtube was user-generated and so beyond their control. So even if the algorithms go astray a bit, presumably the content it directs a user too is still something that Netflix thought was worth licensing.
Regarding their use of data in creating original content, one thing that Netflix has reportedly been good at is giving creative control and flexibility  to the production partners it signs deals with. So while they seem to be data-driven in deciding what kinds of shows need to be created, they aren’t too prescriptive once they greenlight a production, which has helped them maintain a good relationship with creative talent.
 “Netflix gives creative control and production flexibility. Producers also aren’t saddled with the pressure for their shows to perform under traditional television ratings metrics,” said Peter Csathy, founder of media consulting firm Creatv Media. “Given those advantages, it’s hard to say no to Netflix.” via https://digiday.com/media/netflixs-deal-terms-pose-a-conundrum-for-tv-studios/
Fascinating piece! I thought it is particularly interesting how crowdsourcing innovation guarantees that they are making something that consumers want by having them involved in both creating and voting on flavors. On your question around Pepsi R&D, I definitely see an opportunity to slowly move some of that spend from traditional R&D to crowdsourcing. However, I imagine that R&D will continue to play a key role in some of the things you mentioned such as identifying new ingredients and technologies, and so perhaps the right thing to do over time would be to change the scope of R&D?
Really interesting write-up! In this case, since a lot of the data used to generate the schedules are specific to the hospital, perhaps that levels the playing field a bit and reduces the data advantage that the behemoths have against LeanTaaS? Additionally, I think the user-friendly application you mentioned could help add some defensibility and increase switching costs. I totally agree on the cross-selling as well, which also could have another benefit of embedding LeanTaaS further in a hospital and reducing churn.