Shray Patel

I do not think the user experience will be entirely improved or impaired for Instagram users because there are multiple types of users for the app. The experience will improve for those looking to buy or sell products on the app, but will most likely worsen for those who just want to view and post content with minimal ad interruption. Personally, as someone who deleted my account over a year ago because I did not like the updates, I would be unhappy with the move towards an online marketplace as an Instagram user. This seems like a move to please Instagram’s most valuable accounts, while also taking a percentage of the transactions. I think it’s too much to throw at Instagram’s majority of users. Similar to how SnapChat usage declined after the infamous update that changed too much, I think Instagram will, unfortunately, follow suit.

This is an interesting opportunity for Instagram and although it is reasonable to think that user experience could be weakened, in my opinion, users will gradually accept more ads and the fact that Instagram becoming a marketplace. We have seen several examples of this: when YouTube first made users watch ads before videos, people were dissatisfied and vocal about this on social media. However, most of us accept watching ads on Youtube now. Another example of ads acceptance is Facebook, owner of Instagram itself when Facebook started targeted ads on its platform.

I think VR will be the next big thing in the entertainment industry. However, it hasn’t been a widespread idea because of the limited resource and content available despite the excitement it can bring. As mentioned, VR technology has been available for a few years, yet the content is limited. VR is still considered a niche product; not too many people have it and not too many industry or company uses it. I would not think VR in entertainment will be a fail, but I do believe that the movement or spread of VR in entertainment industry will be slow.

This is a great example of VR business application! This reminds me of the success of 3D movies with the 3D glasses in that people are looking for more realistic film experience. However, it has some risks that unlike going to the theater to see a 3D movie is a social experience, watching a movie with a VR set is more of something you do alone. It’ll be very interesting to see how Disney plan to grow the VR market.

I see the VR industry as still in the “early adopters” phase and that’s why I think mass adoption has not occurred, the technology just is not there yet for the general public. As you mention from the article, the “chicken and the egg” comparison is very apt for the industry, and Disney deciding to make content for this industry has the potential to help move the industry to the next phase of adoption. If implemented and designed well VR will be another way to consume entertainment, but if those things do not happen, VR will be seen as gimmicky and will never see mass adoption from the general consumer. VR will be seen in a similar way as the 3D TVs from a few years ago that were supposed to be “the next big thing” and consumers just did not see the value in the feature.

Virtual reality can be a big thing indeed.
However, there is unlikely to be explosive or widespread adoption without the necessary changes in the surrounding entertainment ecosystem.
As Disney still relies on media and parks for sales. The traditional media experience includes the interaction between the following dimensions;
– Social: friends and families with whom you share the joy in their presence and discuss movies before and after the show.
– Food: lunch or dinner after the movie, and snacks in the middle.
– Cinema: the dark room with a social atmosphere. The home cinema scene also has certain requirements.
– Sound: surround sound that matches the work, usually provided by the cinema or good home system.

Content is wonderful, but mass-adoption of VR requires the convergence of all the pieces within the entertainment experience: from technology (one cannot maintain attention for a long time without inducing discomfort) to social context (people don’t enjoy movies solely in solitude). It may develop into a great niche within the streaming business, but widespread adoption in the scope and scale of Disney’s mainstream is unlikely until other changes have taken place.

However, Disney can certainly integrate VR into its parks and recreation business, which thrives on novelty and new ideas.

I do think VR has the potential to be the next breakthrough technology, but I believe it’s too early in the development timeline of the technology for widespread use. Other than a few big-name players, companies have not yet invested in providing quality VR content to their consumers, which has caused a stagnant demand for the technology. Until companies develop VR products that the majority of consumers are willing to use, VR will remain a niche technology with specific use cases.
I think Disney is in a good position to invest in and experiment with VR. They definitely have the resources to make a product to spark demand, and if they don’t succeed with a consumer product they can implement VR into rides at their many theme parks. Imagine the potential for a Star Wars or Marvel inspired VR ride.

I think this is a very interesting look at VR technology. I do agree that a lack of content is a big reason why adoption hasn’t been so widespread, but I also believe there’s a cost factor. While prices are going down, they’re still not at the point where the average American would see it as worth investing in. To take smartphones as an example, they did originally start out at a very high price, but they at least had many more applications than VR currently does. It’s also entirely anecdotal, but I’ve seen some stigma attached to using VR technology. Just watch someone use VR in a room by themselves to see what I mean. I could also see that having an impact on consumer adoption as well.

This topic is very interesting. When companies hire more robots, lots of people would lose their jobs. Therefroe, they will get no money. However, the companies which use robots will make more profits.
It seems like taxing robots is a good idea, because rising costs will make hiring robots not so appealing. And, the government will get tax to help the unemployment.

I think this is an interesting topic as automation becomes more and more commonly used in many industries. Automation processes, the used of robot, in many sense is not a 1 to 1 replacement ratio, but in many cause one to many ratio. Not only does robots replace the amount of workers needed in large ratio, it can also increase productivity, efficiency. and other potential benefits. Yet, such investment in automation will also increase unemployment rates. Vast majority of government’s money comes from income taxes and payroll taxes; with more and more companies relying on automation, hundreds of billions of tax dollars would be lost. Thus, if properly constructed like in South Korea, then such system can help reduce falls in government revenue caused by automation.

This is a great summary of a great article.
I think the answer to the question you posed at the end, whether if it is the US or a team who makes the decision to adopt metric, depends on their ability to reconcile the needs of different stakeholders.
On one side, administrators, organizers, and some trainers can rely on the standardized metric system to make better measurements and decisions on how to represent achievements of their teams. On the flip side, you have spectators and coaches who are familiar with the imperial system, for whom a change will create some hefty costs.
This points out the an aspect of metric that we haven’t touched on in our readings: it seems the value of a metric is also dependent on the network effect. However, in the case of metric vs imperial, there are just two different networks.

Unless something major happens to change the way Americans use the measuring system, I do not believe the US will be embracing the metric system any time soon. This goes back to the concept of “see, feel, change” that we learned in MIS 3535. To create lasting change, the US audience needs to see why the metric system is better, which will make them feel like a change is needed to improve the measurement system. In this case, I believe that there is no major benefit in changing it to the metric system to compel the US to make the change; it is just two different ways of measuring distance.

Technology’s accuracy and precision has really increased the efficiency and possibilities of today’s world. With its continual growth things such as the X Games are truly reaping the benefits with the way its really simplifying and providing opportunities. Things such as creating to scale modals and being able to execute the leveling to very smallest details causing for an increased workflow with very needed added safety benefits is truly astonishing and something most people couldn’t dream of just a few years ago. I am sure the X Games isn’t the only huge event that uses technology to get the best outcomes and efficiency. This example of the use of tech is so important to our lives today should just open our mind to the astonishing possibilities that tech will open for us in the future to come. We as MIS majors get to take part at that and its honestly amazing.