James R. Brunetto

CareCam could be very useful when it comes to monitoring clinical trials. Depending on the apps features and the clinical trial, it could collect accurate daily data of how the patient feels and if they are experiencing any slight side affects. I’m not sure I understand how taking a video or a picture will help the doctor monitor the patient’s health; a video fabrication might be hard to do but I think picture fabrication is possible and might not be the greatest way to monitor health. This app could be very useful when it comes to monitoring blood sugar levels for diabetics and reporting it back to their doctor right away. It might be a nice way to relieve some pressure off the doctor and remind patients to come in for certain diagnostic tests. Going off of the reminder idea, it could alert the patient/doctor that the plan might need to be changed. For example, I’ve had to analyze charts to see if doctors were paying attention to a patient’s BMI and recommending a follow up plan to address it, but most doctors did not have a follow-up plan. This app could serve as a reminder to the doctor.

I think there’s definitely potential for disruption, mostly because of the aspect of instant streaming, which other consoles can’t offer. I think that in order to keep Nvidia’s Shield from getting too much of the market, incumbents like PlayStation and Xbox need to partner with popular game manufacturers (those who produce Madden, COD, etc.), to ensure that those games are only available through their consoles and are not available for streaming. I think that game selection will be a huge deciding factor for consumers that can make or break Shield.

Good find. The Nvidia Shield has the potential to be disruptive over time (not initially), but there are three reasons I think it will simply be a niche product that doesn’t disrupt the industry or its incumbents (such as Sony or Microsoft).

1) Other products like this exist, such as OnLive, but Shield requires the physical console in order for the grid service to work; OnLive, on the other hand, takes full advantage of the “Internet of Things” and allows a user to stream games (also in a number of subscription plans) on a variety of internet-enabled devices, along with a physical console the company provides.

2) The Shield, as of now, is looking like it will be more of an alternative to a standard gaming PC. Its infrastructure is a combination of a PC-esque platform (comparable to Valve’s Steam platform and its related “Steam Box” PC-esque consoles) and Android, and aims to be an all-around entertainment platform built on the foundation of streaming. It has impressive specs and a great price (and on this front it can be viewed as superior to the processing power and price of traditional video game consoles), but, even with a large focus on games, there’s nothing new the console/service is offering to a traditional “gamer”, which brings me to my 3rd point

3) Games. As mentioned in the article, Nvidia will need to add a lot more games to its console/service before it can become a viable alternative and competitor to companies like Sony and Microsoft. As of now, there are only 50 games lined up for the service. Nvidia will also need to acquire exclusivity, but with its hybrid PC/Android infrastructure, by default this isn’t really possible; in other words, it is only capable of playing what is already available or will be available on the PC or Android. The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, on the other hand, are proprietary consoles with their own unique infrastructure that have a multitude of exclusive games and services that enable them to remain as leaders in the market. Also, with companies like Sony already starting to stream games with its PlayStation Now service (as I mentioned in my presentation) on multiple Sony devices, it will be hard for Nvidia to convince gamers to shift to their new platform without offering more exclusive benefits.

Overall it will remain an attractive alternative for niche consumers, but in my opinion it will be nothing more.

I can add some perspective about IT related risk:

During my risk management classes and internship, most articles and seminars seem to push the insurance industry toward paying more attention to IT risk. Insurance companies are finally catching up to issue and advising their clients on how to properly manage this type of risk i.e cyber security, data centers resilience…etc.

The catch, however, is that IT has become so vital to most businesses that they can’t afford to simply buy insurance on their system and get funds to rebuild them in case an accident happen. Organizations should be proactive toward the matter and manage the risk, like this article suggests, and not only transfer it to an insurance carrier.

I will be first to say I am in no way shape or form impressed ,or supportive in anything Obama is doing or has done. That being said, I do believe the companies are battling with Obama in regards to releasing information. It comes back to being a huge liability for the company, especially if other companies have access to view the information. That in my eyes is just a law suit waiting to happen. I really don’t believe there is much a company can do to ease a customer’s worries when the company will be sharing all of their information. Our information is not secure enough as it is let alone when it is being passed around between governments, and then other companies.

Weather a company should use cloud or on-premise ERPs definitely depends on the company. I think many older and larger companies are afraid of using a cloud service for their ERP because then they are putting a lot of their operation risk in one place. If the cloud provider goes down then they would not be able to continue many of their companies functions. In reality the odds of the cloud or on-premise system going down is probably about the same. Both local IT people and the cloud company do not want the business to ever experience down time. The key difference being if an on-premise system goes down they have direct control over getting it back up. When deciding if they should use a cloud or on premise ERP they should consider their size, security needs, the level of expertise they need, current data center architecture, and how much customization of the ERP they require. I am not sure how a hybrid cloud and on-premise ERP would work. I feel like doing this would open up more security risks, as there would be more places someone could possibly get into the system. You would need to set it up so you could seamlessly transfer data between the part stored in the cloud and the part stored on premise. You would basically be paying for all of the upgrades people who are switching to the cloud are trying to avoid while also paying rent to the cloud provider.