Edge Week #2 was a success! It is favorite lesson so far. It contains many videos that are from satirical to inspirational.
The week's focus was on the company, "Uncharted Play" and their invention, the SOCCKET. It is a soccer ball that has capabilities to turn 30 minutes of play into 3 hours of clean energy. There are many sources and excerpts that give different perspectives on this innovation. At the end of the lesson, I was asked why I liked or disliked the SOCCKET.
I replied:
I am not exactly sure if it is as efficient as it claims to be. A half hour of play is claimed to produce 3 hours of electricity. The numbers are attractive and seem to promote efficiency. However, this electricity cannot be distributed that well. Only one person or child can embrace these three hours of electricity. Soccer is a team sport. One ball for the whole team. One child takes one ball home, and the other kids either do not have a SOCCKET ball or could not play with it for the day to produce the electricity needed. The kids are less likely to play ball by themselves. Then again, this is not a non-profit organization. It is a business, which tries to produce some change with its profit. It is kind of like TOMS except electricity is probably more of a necessity than shoes are. I think the technology is definitely advanced. After this short radio piece, however, it seems as if even the technology does not work or harness energy well. The mass production of the SOCCKET reduces the amount of time taken to test every product and create a back-up plan if the product fails. From the 8 out of 10 people personally asked in Puebla, Mexico, it seemed as if the kids did not find it as fun or efficient to continue using it for more than a few months. The organization claims that its sole purpose is to enhance the fun and to promote play. After the electricity capability of the ball disintegrates, the SOCCKET still remains a normal soccer ball. The children should find fun in this toy despite the SOCCKET technology. On the contrary, after the electricity power fails, the children do not care for the ball anymore. If the organization's purpose to to promote play, the product should remain fun even without its electricity-generating capabilities. If the SOCCKET cannot match its own mission, the balls are a waste of a lot of money. These families and children need to be asked what they really want to create fun and play in the community. What would they want to play with? Around $60-$80 for one ball that does not even work that well is a waste of technology and time. Instead, this money can be used to connect the house to the power grid, as suggested in the radio piece, which will give electricity to the whole family rather than just one child. The efforts of this organization is definitely a step in the right direction. A better solution would be to think of their ultimate "customers." Although large companies such as State Farm and Porsche buy this product in mass, the SOCCKET eventually ends in the hands of children from "underdeveloped" cities. It is not necessary to appeal to the large companies. These companies will always have money, and will spend this money as charity to promulgate their company's name across the globe. After surveying a population, the organization should use the energy-technology towards something that will aid the community as the community sees fit. A business is afloat on customer satisfaction. This radio piece shows more dissatisfaction and nonchalance among its ultimate customers.
Kit Dobyns' response: Ruby, those are some great insights! With such high rates of customer satisfaction, why is that SOCCKET continues to excel as a business?
My response again: I think it is highly due to its inventors. The technology and design are flashy, and it was a student-originated idea or invention. I think it is because the middlemen, such as State Farm, do not follow-up with the product as the radio piece did. The SOCCKET has been appreciated by the President of America, by Fortune 2011, and Harvard College. Sponsors can paste their company logos all over the balls, achieving goals of advertisement and charity at the same time. It has a lot to do with the hype. 1/5 of the human population lacks stable electricity. This SOCCKET ball produces clean energy. The companies think they are making a great difference since they are helping one fifth of the human population. They cannot even reach these many people through television advertisements since this one fifth does not have enough electricity for cable connection. It is a win-win for them. It is a $99 ball. Individuals are less likely to buy it; however, it appealing to larger companies. There are probably a lot more factors to consider. I believe that SOCCKET is a great innovation and idea that produces lots of capital and somewhat minor change. The lots of capital attracts more capital investors, keeping SOCCKET in business.
The Omprakash Grant is due February 15th, 2015. I have finished the essay, and I am getting it reviewed by Mr.Templet after school.
The week's focus was on the company, "Uncharted Play" and their invention, the SOCCKET. It is a soccer ball that has capabilities to turn 30 minutes of play into 3 hours of clean energy. There are many sources and excerpts that give different perspectives on this innovation. At the end of the lesson, I was asked why I liked or disliked the SOCCKET.
I replied:
I am not exactly sure if it is as efficient as it claims to be. A half hour of play is claimed to produce 3 hours of electricity. The numbers are attractive and seem to promote efficiency. However, this electricity cannot be distributed that well. Only one person or child can embrace these three hours of electricity. Soccer is a team sport. One ball for the whole team. One child takes one ball home, and the other kids either do not have a SOCCKET ball or could not play with it for the day to produce the electricity needed. The kids are less likely to play ball by themselves. Then again, this is not a non-profit organization. It is a business, which tries to produce some change with its profit. It is kind of like TOMS except electricity is probably more of a necessity than shoes are. I think the technology is definitely advanced. After this short radio piece, however, it seems as if even the technology does not work or harness energy well. The mass production of the SOCCKET reduces the amount of time taken to test every product and create a back-up plan if the product fails. From the 8 out of 10 people personally asked in Puebla, Mexico, it seemed as if the kids did not find it as fun or efficient to continue using it for more than a few months. The organization claims that its sole purpose is to enhance the fun and to promote play. After the electricity capability of the ball disintegrates, the SOCCKET still remains a normal soccer ball. The children should find fun in this toy despite the SOCCKET technology. On the contrary, after the electricity power fails, the children do not care for the ball anymore. If the organization's purpose to to promote play, the product should remain fun even without its electricity-generating capabilities. If the SOCCKET cannot match its own mission, the balls are a waste of a lot of money. These families and children need to be asked what they really want to create fun and play in the community. What would they want to play with? Around $60-$80 for one ball that does not even work that well is a waste of technology and time. Instead, this money can be used to connect the house to the power grid, as suggested in the radio piece, which will give electricity to the whole family rather than just one child. The efforts of this organization is definitely a step in the right direction. A better solution would be to think of their ultimate "customers." Although large companies such as State Farm and Porsche buy this product in mass, the SOCCKET eventually ends in the hands of children from "underdeveloped" cities. It is not necessary to appeal to the large companies. These companies will always have money, and will spend this money as charity to promulgate their company's name across the globe. After surveying a population, the organization should use the energy-technology towards something that will aid the community as the community sees fit. A business is afloat on customer satisfaction. This radio piece shows more dissatisfaction and nonchalance among its ultimate customers.
Kit Dobyns' response: Ruby, those are some great insights! With such high rates of customer satisfaction, why is that SOCCKET continues to excel as a business?
My response again: I think it is highly due to its inventors. The technology and design are flashy, and it was a student-originated idea or invention. I think it is because the middlemen, such as State Farm, do not follow-up with the product as the radio piece did. The SOCCKET has been appreciated by the President of America, by Fortune 2011, and Harvard College. Sponsors can paste their company logos all over the balls, achieving goals of advertisement and charity at the same time. It has a lot to do with the hype. 1/5 of the human population lacks stable electricity. This SOCCKET ball produces clean energy. The companies think they are making a great difference since they are helping one fifth of the human population. They cannot even reach these many people through television advertisements since this one fifth does not have enough electricity for cable connection. It is a win-win for them. It is a $99 ball. Individuals are less likely to buy it; however, it appealing to larger companies. There are probably a lot more factors to consider. I believe that SOCCKET is a great innovation and idea that produces lots of capital and somewhat minor change. The lots of capital attracts more capital investors, keeping SOCCKET in business.
The Omprakash Grant is due February 15th, 2015. I have finished the essay, and I am getting it reviewed by Mr.Templet after school.
No comments:
Post a Comment