Alat Mustafa

To answer your question, beyond beef would need to make the consumer comfortable with this new concept before meat lover consumers would be comfortable with this idea. It’s very similar to what Tesla is in right now where we have this new and innovative product, but all aren’t on board with the idea. What they need to do is have consumers to have an opportunity to taste beyond burger, some areas to consider having it at grocery stores for consumers to try or even restaurants branding it by giving them that when they ask for a regular burger and tell them what they’re really eating(although for some that might not end well). Once you have people comfortable with the new concept then everyone shifts to your favor.

Beyond beef burgers do not seem disruptive to me. As you said, veggie burgers have been around for decades. The fact that these burgers will be cheaper than the traditional hamburger is a good selling point, but it’s hard for me to picture consumers knowingly choosing to eat these burgers over traditional ones. Consumers know what comprises a traditional burger and they will be skeptical of anything that is not made from actual meat but is designed to taste like it. They will need to be given the information about all ingredients in the burger before ever making the decision to switch. I believe that most consumers will gladly take on higher costs to eat real meat as opposed to an imposter designed to taste like it.

I think this is a really interesting concept, but am not entirely sure if this will realistically be successful in creating a new market. I think there are definitely going to be consumers who jump on the idea of a burger made with sustainable ingredients and environmentally friendly processes, but am not sure who exactly these consumers are or how many of them there are. I think that, at this point, people who want to eat a burger that tastes like meat aren’t going to be ready to abandon their cravings to try the Beyond Burger. I agree with you and Joseph that it could take some time to get consumers comfortable with the idea of trying this substitute for beef, and will take significant efforts to really create a successful new market.

In my opinion, I don’t believe Beyond Meat Burger is really a disruptive innovation. The idea of meatless burger is definitely not new because there are alternatives that are already available on the market, such as vegan burger. Maybe a small portion of the consumer will buy in to the idea of Beyond Meat Burger that taste just like a real burger that is better overall in term of nutrition facts and also doesn’t harm the environment. I can definitely see this idea speak to some people. However, to say that Beyond Meat Burger is a disruptive to the market is somewhat questionable because I think it’s going to take a lot more effort and a massive marketing strategy to really reach the consumer. The company do have a legitimate concept, but if anything, I just think Beyond Meat Burger is just another healthier choice of burger that consumer can buy.

I think lab grown meat would provide benefits far beyond vegetarianism and veganism. First of all, lab-grown meat is more environmental friendly than conventional meat. Lab-grown meat involves “approximately 7 percent to 45 percent lower energy use, 78 percent to 96 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions, 99 percent lower land use and 82 percent to 96 percent lower water use”. Secondly, since lab-grown meat requires significantly smaller land and resources, and not being affected by local climate, lab-grown meat could be a real solution for the population who suffered from hunger around the world. One of the main barriers at the moment is the price. Lab-grown meat is now available at many US supermarket (Wholefoods, ShopRite…). but it is still slightly more expensive than conventional meat. However, given the growth rate of bioengineering technology, I believe lab-grown meat will soon become more affordable, even cheaper than conventional meat, and will bring many benefits to a large population of the world.

Apple’s introduction of a subscription news service is another example of how technology is disrupting the newspaper industry. The industry first believed that they could solely base their online business on advertisement revenue and made all their quality news content on the internet for free. Customers have become used to this information being instantly available and free of charge, so when the big newspaper companies decided to introduce payment barriers, people switched to social media as their primary source of information. However, within social media newspaper articles find themselves between (often extreme and biased) opinions and poorly researched pseudo-journalism without any means of fact-checking and responsibility for the author. Thus, I believe that while news companies might only receive a fraction of their own subscription prices on the Apple platform, such a consolidated news platform of high quality content, which is backed and driven to customers by a market leader like Apple, is a huge chance for journalism to find its way back on the phones and computers of the people. It will be interesting to see if customers will be willing to pay again for news and information as they did in times of news-papers and as they are for their leisure and entertainment with services such as Netflix and Hulu.

This sounds like a good business strategy from Apple. However, one of my biggest concerns in regards to this matter is the power that Apple would get from this. As we can see how Netflix started by listing contents from different movies producers, Netflix now put out 1500 hours of its original contents in 2018 alone. My point is that if this plan were to become reality, Apple would eventually produce its own contents once the number of subscribers reaches a certain threshold. As a consumer, I don’t think it’s a good idea to give big corporation that amount of power.

A major bug like Facetime evesdropping could have been addressed on time instead of a significant crisis. Apple’s constant updates on iOS devices make security vulnerable, which shrinks the timeline for beta and security testing.