Yelp Elite '20's Profile

On the tech side, another example of open innovation is the general Open Source movement, which has been around since the very early days of computing (if you’re using a Mac, the operating system itself is built on an Open Source version). A couple key licenses come to mind when balancing the tradeoffs between commercial viability and abuse of open innovation: GPL, Apache, and MIT. At a high level, MIT is the most lenient when it comes to using open-source/open innovation for commercial uses, while GPL is most strict – if you use open source material to create another product, you have to open source that product as well. This restriction I believe has led to its restricted adoption among Open Source acolytes, and which is why we don’t see many computers running Linux in the consumer space. More info found here for those who are interested: https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl/

When thinking about open innovation risks, I think the delineation has to be drawn around if/how customer data is shared. Data that is personally identifiable (PII) should be closely guarded and monitored, while data that is anonymized should be more lenient. We should attach the same level of rigor around PII in open innovations as we do around customer transaction and bank data!

A much needed innovation especially when considering what the current standard of care is. Given current patients wait months and sometimes years for organ transplants, this really will help democratize access in ways we haven’t seen before. However, this space is fraught with failed attempts like Tengion (now defunct). https://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/bankruptcy-court-approves-offer-to-buy-tengion/article_748ff1c4-c431-11e4-8b4c-6f6f7a43c3ed.html

I think the previous comments really hit the nail on the head here about the key risks around FDA approval and the high bar for use in a clinical setting. Partnering with L’oreal was the absolute right move here, since the scientific bar will be significantly lower, and provide the company with much needed time and additional cash infusions to develop clinical solutions.

When I initially read the headline for this article, I was immediately skeptical of the benefits of a 3D-printed shoe. What is the true advantage of mass-producing 3D-printed shoes other than the aesthetics. However, reading through the article and comments made me think of how 3D-printed shoes can upend the way shoes’ supply chains work. Currently, shoes are manufactured at a remote location (perhaps multiple remote locations) and then shipped to the consumer. With 3D-printing, you can move the manufacturing process significantly closer to the consumer (heck, even at the point of sale!), significantly reducing lead times and inventory holding costs. While I agree the need for CAD designers for new/unique designs that didn’t exist before, I feel like that would be a relatively low fixed cost that will be spread out over a large customer base for custom-printed shoes.

“I think Waymo can demonstrate its commitment to its mission of improving transportation by assisting cities in emerging economies, where it wants to expand, build integrated transportation systems.” Couldn’t agree more with this point! As AV technology improvements hit a plateau, companies like Waymo and Tesla can no longer rely purely on product development to get to the safety levels needed for general public adoption. Just as roads and laws/regulations changed with the introduction of cars, so too will these aspects need to change with the introduction of autonomous vehicles. I think the sooner manufacturers recognize this, the sooner we’ll be able to see the next wave of improvements come online!

Perhaps Wayfair can augment AR with machine learning and computer vision to not only match items that are similar to a piece of furniture, but items that would visually go with the decor of the room. It could be a real differentiator and there is first mover advantage here as a dedicated site with high volume of sales of furniture. As the training set becomes larger, this will give Wayfair a significant head start over competitors like Ikea and Amazon.

Agree with many of the comments above. A couple things I would add are:
1) How can this be carried to other areas of medicine? One startup doing interesting things around a hybrid open/closed approach is Flatiron Health. They work closely with not only hospitals to share data about cancer patients (which traditionally have been closely guarded) and outcomes but also with academic and research institutions to make use of that data.
2) To a certain extent, academic research already fosters some “open collaboration”, with research journals and publications. I wonder how this is different from that existing status quo and what are the differentiated incentives to go via this path vs standard academia.

In answer to your question regarding ability to commercialize and competitiveness of a non-profit compared to for-profit initiatives, I think providing not only a collaboration platform but also . This has been done in academia to some extent via commercialization labs, but there is room for more structured and focused initiatives like CO-ADD.