5 ms·

Friend recently told me that when Theranos first hit the news as a darling startup, his MIT Microfluidics PhD friends went to see what the novel science was abo

Friend recently told me that when Theranos first hit the news as a darling startup, his MIT Microfluidics PhD friends went to see what the novel science was about. Naturally they read her paper and ... They couldn't find anything new/special in the paper and were left scratching their heads. Maybe VC stronger connections with scientists, not just technologies when doing due diligence? By the way this is a non sequitur but I find it poetically ironic that Theranos HQ is located on Page Mill Road where WSJ's Silicon Valley branch used to be located back in the day.

madaxe_again 11y ago
I've been maintaining for a while that Theranos is a very cynical investment vehicle, and has little to do with medicine. The backgrounds of those connected, of her family, of the trajectory and direction of the company (everything has been very PR and financial press oriented) suggests that their key mission is to grow the value of the company, rather than do anything novel. The sad thing is, this seems to be an increasingly common strategy in a certain segment of the business world, and it brings value to nobody ultimately - it just separates optimistic investors who just see a wunderkind and incredible new technology from their money.
- roye 11y ago
  Sounds like an accurate description of a ponzi scheme.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I believe the phrase is "Fake it 'til you Make it" - whether this is a legitimate approach tends to only be obvious in retrospect.
    - random_moonwalk 11y ago
      It is troubling if this is the mantra of a manufacturer of medical equipment, however.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  While I am not going to question your cynicism, it would appear the aim was more to exploit the USA military not do a standard pump and dump. Look at the board.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  their key mission is to grow the value of the company, rather than do anything novel I propose that this is the majority of startups and an even higher percentage of companies generally. I even wrote about that distinction last week (https://medium.com/@andrewkemendo/startups-need-to-start-valuing-themselves-on-impact-not-valuation-8276690ae862#.icg4lm7iy https://medium.com/@andrewkemendo/startups-need-to-start-val...) and the response was basically: The only way anything should be evaluated is based on return. Very few of us actually give a shit about doing something novel.
  - cbsmith 11y ago
    > Very few of us actually give a shit about doing something novel. Most novelty presents outside of business in general, including startups. Startups generally are applying the novelty (that is no longer novel) that is perceived as potentially valuable to see if it actually is. Ideally, startups should be focused on doing something _well_, rather than doing something _novel_. To the extent that novelty occurs, it should be a side effect of that objective.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      I think the whole ethos behind a high-tech startup is that you do something well by implementing a novel (in the sense of adoption rate) process or technology. There is certainly room for disagreement, but all of the "high tech startups" that make up the startup zeitgeist, were exactly that.
      - cbsmith 11y ago
        > I think the whole ethos behind a high-tech startup is that you do something well by implementing a novel (in the sense of adoption rate) process or technology. That might be the ethos, but it isn't the reality. Most startups aren't first movers, and most of the ones who succeed aren't either. Throwing in "in the sense of adoption rate" is kind of silly though, no? Every mom & pop shop has its own unique process that hasn't been widely adopted. I swear, those Zappos shoes are just like the ones you get on other web sites.
- cbsmith 11y ago
  > their key mission is to grow the value of the company, rather than do anything novel. Well, from an investor's perspective, doing anything novel is fraught with risk, and growing the value of the company is what feeds my ROI. If there is a way to grow the value without taking that risk, they ought to do it. Be novel only when necessary.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    Not everything is about ROI.
    - cbsmith 11y ago
      Of course not everything is about ROI. However, the VC model is predicated on outsized returns. Without that they don't exist. Novelty's value to a VC is that it makes it more credible that they'll see such outsized returns. When founding a new organization, you have a choice of making it for-profit, or non-profit. If you choose for-profit, you are making a statement about your priorities; when you take VC money, the term sheets are very clear about the ambitious ROI you are going for.
      - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
        I think your point about profit vs non-profit is a good one. Unfortunately I have yet to see a non-profit or FOSS bring widespread changes to the way people live and work - so we are kind of stuck for a while with this model eh?
        cbsmith 11y ago
        I dunnoh. The Linux Foundation/EFF/FSF/etc. seem to have done a fair bit. ICANN too.

madaxe_again 11y ago

I've been maintaining for a while that Theranos is a very cynical investment vehicle, and has little to do with medicine. The backgrounds of those connected, of her family, of the trajectory and direction of the company (everything has been very PR and financial press oriented) suggests that their key mission is to grow the value of the company, rather than do anything novel. The sad thing is, this seems to be an increasingly common strategy in a certain segment of the business world, and it brings value to nobody ultimately - it just separates optimistic investors who just see a wunderkind and incredible new technology from their money.

roye 11y ago
Sounds like an accurate description of a ponzi scheme.
- arethuza 11y ago
  I believe the phrase is "Fake it 'til you Make it" - whether this is a legitimate approach tends to only be obvious in retrospect.
  - random_moonwalk 11y ago
    It is troubling if this is the mantra of a manufacturer of medical equipment, however.
danieltillett 11y ago
While I am not going to question your cynicism, it would appear the aim was more to exploit the USA military not do a standard pump and dump. Look at the board.
AndrewKemendo 11y ago
their key mission is to grow the value of the company, rather than do anything novel I propose that this is the majority of startups and an even higher percentage of companies generally. I even wrote about that distinction last week (https://medium.com/@andrewkemendo/startups-need-to-start-valuing-themselves-on-impact-not-valuation-8276690ae862#.icg4lm7iy https://medium.com/@andrewkemendo/startups-need-to-start-val...) and the response was basically: The only way anything should be evaluated is based on return. Very few of us actually give a shit about doing something novel.
- cbsmith 11y ago
  > Very few of us actually give a shit about doing something novel. Most novelty presents outside of business in general, including startups. Startups generally are applying the novelty (that is no longer novel) that is perceived as potentially valuable to see if it actually is. Ideally, startups should be focused on doing something _well_, rather than doing something _novel_. To the extent that novelty occurs, it should be a side effect of that objective.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    I think the whole ethos behind a high-tech startup is that you do something well by implementing a novel (in the sense of adoption rate) process or technology. There is certainly room for disagreement, but all of the "high tech startups" that make up the startup zeitgeist, were exactly that.
    - cbsmith 11y ago
      > I think the whole ethos behind a high-tech startup is that you do something well by implementing a novel (in the sense of adoption rate) process or technology. That might be the ethos, but it isn't the reality. Most startups aren't first movers, and most of the ones who succeed aren't either. Throwing in "in the sense of adoption rate" is kind of silly though, no? Every mom & pop shop has its own unique process that hasn't been widely adopted. I swear, those Zappos shoes are just like the ones you get on other web sites.
cbsmith 11y ago
> their key mission is to grow the value of the company, rather than do anything novel. Well, from an investor's perspective, doing anything novel is fraught with risk, and growing the value of the company is what feeds my ROI. If there is a way to grow the value without taking that risk, they ought to do it. Be novel only when necessary.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  Not everything is about ROI.
  - cbsmith 11y ago
    Of course not everything is about ROI. However, the VC model is predicated on outsized returns. Without that they don't exist. Novelty's value to a VC is that it makes it more credible that they'll see such outsized returns. When founding a new organization, you have a choice of making it for-profit, or non-profit. If you choose for-profit, you are making a statement about your priorities; when you take VC money, the term sheets are very clear about the ambitious ROI you are going for.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      I think your point about profit vs non-profit is a good one. Unfortunately I have yet to see a non-profit or FOSS bring widespread changes to the way people live and work - so we are kind of stuck for a while with this model eh?
      - cbsmith 11y ago
        I dunnoh. The Linux Foundation/EFF/FSF/etc. seem to have done a fair bit. ICANN too.