I beg to differ, but I think since Heart Health has recently got the new funding, aside from strengthening its main point as heart health apps (for heart disease) which I think will be done to retain its current user base, they should start exploring to other strategy as well to attract new customers as been said in groing broad: mental health and diabetes (which has a very strong ties with heart health). I've seen the UI of its app and I do think it can be broaden to new users (new ways of branding might help). As the Tech Startups always do iteration, "fail early, fail fast, fail often" slogan, then it can do 2 things: - Make a new features trying to achieve those new customers, - Make a dummy/beta tester product.

Hello Heart has strong capability in heart health management, evidenced by its positive user engagement and health outcomes. Broadening its scope to other chronic conditions could tap into a larger market and fulfill a growing need for comprehensive health management tools. However, this move requires careful balancing to aviod dilutig their heart health expertise. On the other hand, styaing specialized in heart health ensure deep expertise and potentially stfonger outcomes in this crucial area. By focusing on heart disease, Hello Heart can refine its platform, possibly becoming the definitive solution in this field.

I agree with A4 and A10 on the firece competition point.

In my opinion, the need of customer is also an important concern. It is suggested in the material that self-insuranced companies are main customers of Hello Heart, and these companies have ambiguity in the ROI of such applications, and some companies don't have knowledge to evaluate the health products.

I suppose that the companies would like a less expensive or expertised product, but a more wide product, so that they could minimize their expense and efforts on the welfare part.

In this way, a focused product may not suit well with their needs. Do you think it is a concern?

The case mentioned that heart disease accounted for over $350 billion of the country's annual healthcare expenditure. This indicates a large and enough market for healthcare service and products focused on heart disease. Considering the limited resource, I recommend Hello Heart to continue to deepen and to build its barrier.

I think it also depends on the company's target, if they are eager to raise fund and expand their valuation(like other competitors), or they are satisfied with current business model generating healthy cash flow and great customer feedback(95% retention triple revenues).

Other more successful players (in terms of funds raised or valuation) have already expanded into heart disease management. If Hello Heart cannot outcompete them even in their own space of heart disease management, then its very survival is at risk.

If, on the contrary, it were the larger player with a larger cash base or valuation, then I would advocate for broadening offerings.

The problem is exactly that Hello Heart is defending its own territory from its competitors.

From my opinion, Hello heart is facing two decisions:1. whether they should broaden scope into other chronic disease 2. whether they should introduce human component.

For the 1st question, I believe at present Hello Heart should focus on heart disease area, building more sophisticated functions, but making the most of current users to find other business model, i.e. selling proporiate products to these heart-disease customers. If there were no other competitors go into multi chronic conditions, I would definitely recommen Hello Heart to do so, but right now focusing on heart scope is their differenciation from others.

For the 2nd question, I think Hello Heart can introduce human component as an optional. If their users would like to talk to a real doctor, they can choose this way; if not, they can still on the orgianl algorithms and bots. Of course, they can conduct A/B test which they are good at in the first place to decide if there is enough users are interested in human compnent.

I agree with the points of A10 and A4 on fierce competition in the chronic disease managment market, but would like to further suggest that Hello Heart has a larger user base and growth rate compared with some competitor, would someone think it could surpass other companies if expand its offerings?

This is what I conclude from the case study, please add if necessary: Objective: Growing use base from 60,000 users to 6 million users in the next few years (lets assume in 3 years; exponentially 100x growth) Question: Would they need to do "going deep vs going broad"? How do they do that: add human touch? Underlying assumption that I haven't got from the case: - Total number of US population - Total number of US population with heart disease - Total number of US population with other chronic disease

I think Hello Heart should keep focusing on heart disease management because first, other chronic disease management space is crowded, with competitors already being valued 10x higher than Hello Heart's valuation, and second, heart disease management requires more sophisticated and holisitc management involving lipid panel monitoring, and diet monitoring, for example

from my own opinion, i think Hello Heart should focus on heart health and heart disease, as this is their distinctive advantage