5 ms·

John you make a very good point. Look for industries where the current market has not kept up with advances in technology due to the business structures of the

John you make a very good point. Look for industries where the current market has not kept up with advances in technology due to the business structures of the incumbents. Even if they want to change they can't (e.g Kodak). Hearing aids might fall into this category, but unlike the others on your list you need to deal with the FDA. The FDA should really be called the IPA - Incumbent Protection Agency.

Animats 11y ago
For hearing aid industry disruption, see iHear.[1] Unfortunately, they run on Kickstarter time. (Like mañana, but without the sense of urgency.) They just slipped their delivery date from Q1 2016 to Q2 2016. [1] http://www.ihearmedical.com/ http://www.ihearmedical.com/
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I suspect this slip is due to having to deal with the FDA. If you look through their FAQ and look at the regulation rigmarole they have to deal with just for their hearing test product you will see why this is not an easy area to innovate in. The one thing you can give the medical industry is they have built an amazing system for maintaining the status quo.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Just look at Pharma (subset of medical)... if there is a more disreputable industry, I'm sure it's only a fraction of the size.
- wamatt 11y ago
  I'd love to see someone make a device that's sort of the opposite of this. Compact in-ear selective audio filtering. For example, block all noises except human voice. Or a simple noise attenuation mode that can be controlled from a smartphone.
trhway 11y ago
>The FDA should really be called the IPA - Incumbent Protection Agency. the Theranos story i think clearly shows one more time why such protection from "disruptors" is necessary. Unfortunately we still don't know how to do it more efficiently though. My personal favorite here is FAA - who basically stalled to the complete halt the aircraft development for the last half of century, yet even here i understand the rationale behind it.
- wheaties 11y ago
  It wasn't the FAA. It was all the lawsuits that made the liability of general aviation airplanes completely unprofitable. Aircraft development is still going strong in other countries around the world.
marincounty 11y ago
To be honest, I wish the FDA was tougher. They're so many drugs, we are currently taking, that are just slightly better than placebo--and that's with fuzzy statistics, and a bunch of questionable studies. I took so many pointless medications over the years. When I was younger, I just figured if the drug/devise was FDA approved; it must be efficient? I was wrong!
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Phase III drug trials compare new drugs to the best available treatment, not just placebo. There are also huge classes of drugs that are obviously effective and beneficial (pain killers/nsaids, antihistamines, blood pressure medications, antibiotics,).
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I actually wish the FDA was far less strict. One of the reasons we have so many ineffective drugs is that the FDA values safety over everything else. The ideal drug to get licensed is a sugar pill that due to statical chance (or fraud) shows a slight effect. No side effects and you can sell it to everyone. Of course it wouldn’t do anything, but it would make you a lot of money. If the FDA was less strict then drug companies would develop drugs that actually worked, but also had side effects (basically we would tip the balance back in favor of effectiveness over safety). While it would always be ideal to have a drug that worked perfectly without side effects, it is always better to have a drug that works than one that doesn’t. You can always choose to not take a drug because of the side effects, but if the drug is not sold then you don’t have a choice.
mistermann 11y ago
Could a company manufacture a device in China, and sell via the internet (also from China) and completely ignore the FDA? I suppose the unapproved devices could be "banned" and shipment could attempted to be blocked, but is that not damn near impossible with the amount of mail coming in from China on a daily basis? I can appreciate what the FDA does, but sometimes there comes a point where it is preferable to provide warning and education to consumers but let them choose which product they wish to use.
- eru 11y ago
  They'd get them via banning the financing, not via stopping the product in the mail.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  They would just seize them at the border. This is basically the same as international pharmacies selling pharmaceuticals. You would also want to never plan to travel to the USA ever again - the penalties for ignoring the FDA are not minor.
  - tim333 11y ago
    I'm not American but I went on Amazon and there seem to be loads of cheap hearing aids from about $25 eg http://www.amazon.com/Walkers-Game-Ear-Ultra-Pair/dp/B001FT3MDM http://www.amazon.com/Walkers-Game-Ear-Ultra-Pair/dp/B001FT3... Which implies the FDA doesn't ban them. If the quality of $25 aids is not good that's another issue.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Technically the FDA is not responsible for seizures, but they do deal with infringements. Sure you can get things in that should not come in (after all cocaine and other drugs get in). It is still not a wise idea to start doing this.
brownbat 11y ago
> Look for industries where the current market has not kept up with advances in technology due to the business structures of the incumbents. TI graphing calculators for high school students?
- akhilcacharya 11y ago
  Not happening until you get the ETS and teachers on board. Lots of students already use Wolfram for graphing, the problem is use in proctored environments.

Animats 11y ago

For hearing aid industry disruption, see iHear.[1] Unfortunately, they run on Kickstarter time. (Like mañana, but without the sense of urgency.) They just slipped their delivery date from Q1 2016 to Q2 2016. [1] http://www.ihearmedical.com/ http://www.ihearmedical.com/

danieltillett 11y ago
I suspect this slip is due to having to deal with the FDA. If you look through their FAQ and look at the regulation rigmarole they have to deal with just for their hearing test product you will see why this is not an easy area to innovate in. The one thing you can give the medical industry is they have built an amazing system for maintaining the status quo.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Just look at Pharma (subset of medical)... if there is a more disreputable industry, I'm sure it's only a fraction of the size.
wamatt 11y ago
I'd love to see someone make a device that's sort of the opposite of this. Compact in-ear selective audio filtering. For example, block all noises except human voice. Or a simple noise attenuation mode that can be controlled from a smartphone.

trhway 11y ago

>The FDA should really be called the IPA - Incumbent Protection Agency. the Theranos story i think clearly shows one more time why such protection from "disruptors" is necessary. Unfortunately we still don't know how to do it more efficiently though. My personal favorite here is FAA - who basically stalled to the complete halt the aircraft development for the last half of century, yet even here i understand the rationale behind it.

wheaties 11y ago
It wasn't the FAA. It was all the lawsuits that made the liability of general aviation airplanes completely unprofitable. Aircraft development is still going strong in other countries around the world.

marincounty 11y ago

To be honest, I wish the FDA was tougher. They're so many drugs, we are currently taking, that are just slightly better than placebo--and that's with fuzzy statistics, and a bunch of questionable studies. I took so many pointless medications over the years. When I was younger, I just figured if the drug/devise was FDA approved; it must be efficient? I was wrong!

maxerickson 11y ago
Phase III drug trials compare new drugs to the best available treatment, not just placebo. There are also huge classes of drugs that are obviously effective and beneficial (pain killers/nsaids, antihistamines, blood pressure medications, antibiotics,).
danieltillett 11y ago
I actually wish the FDA was far less strict. One of the reasons we have so many ineffective drugs is that the FDA values safety over everything else. The ideal drug to get licensed is a sugar pill that due to statical chance (or fraud) shows a slight effect. No side effects and you can sell it to everyone. Of course it wouldn’t do anything, but it would make you a lot of money. If the FDA was less strict then drug companies would develop drugs that actually worked, but also had side effects (basically we would tip the balance back in favor of effectiveness over safety). While it would always be ideal to have a drug that worked perfectly without side effects, it is always better to have a drug that works than one that doesn’t. You can always choose to not take a drug because of the side effects, but if the drug is not sold then you don’t have a choice.

mistermann 11y ago

Could a company manufacture a device in China, and sell via the internet (also from China) and completely ignore the FDA? I suppose the unapproved devices could be "banned" and shipment could attempted to be blocked, but is that not damn near impossible with the amount of mail coming in from China on a daily basis? I can appreciate what the FDA does, but sometimes there comes a point where it is preferable to provide warning and education to consumers but let them choose which product they wish to use.

eru 11y ago
They'd get them via banning the financing, not via stopping the product in the mail.
danieltillett 11y ago
They would just seize them at the border. This is basically the same as international pharmacies selling pharmaceuticals. You would also want to never plan to travel to the USA ever again - the penalties for ignoring the FDA are not minor.
- tim333 11y ago
  I'm not American but I went on Amazon and there seem to be loads of cheap hearing aids from about $25 eg http://www.amazon.com/Walkers-Game-Ear-Ultra-Pair/dp/B001FT3MDM http://www.amazon.com/Walkers-Game-Ear-Ultra-Pair/dp/B001FT3... Which implies the FDA doesn't ban them. If the quality of $25 aids is not good that's another issue.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Technically the FDA is not responsible for seizures, but they do deal with infringements. Sure you can get things in that should not come in (after all cocaine and other drugs get in). It is still not a wise idea to start doing this.

brownbat 11y ago

> Look for industries where the current market has not kept up with advances in technology due to the business structures of the incumbents. TI graphing calculators for high school students?

akhilcacharya 11y ago
Not happening until you get the ETS and teachers on board. Lots of students already use Wolfram for graphing, the problem is use in proctored environments.