4 ms·

Isn't this just a combination of generally admired startup behavior (fake it til you make it) combined with a business on which people's health might depend? Wh

by gmarx 10y ago

Isn't this just a combination of generally admired startup behavior (fake it til you make it) combined with a business on which people's health might depend? When I read that they were using regular lab test machines to perform the majority of tests, it struck me as pretty much what my YC friends reported as received wisdom- that it's legit to start out doing it "by hand" before you get your tech working.

sseveran 10y ago
Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". At its core a startup (and its founders and investors) are typically making a contrarian bet that must be right. Theranos bet that it could use a small amount of blood could be used to the same effect of much larger blood draws. It has turned out that this was not right at this point in time. If its technology worked we would not be reading this news story. Of course while every company wants to paint itself in the best light it is probably best not to engage in outright deception. If discovered that can be fatal.
- mbesto 10y ago
  > Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". Unfortunately, many of them start that way, especially those that reap the benefits of network effects. Anecdote: http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/
jasonlaramburu 10y ago
I don't think so. As I understood, their core value proposition was that they could deliver detailed, accurate blood test results with just a few drops of blood and their proprietary analysis technology. In reality, they used traditional venous draws (way more than a few drops), and competitors' systems to deliver test results of lower accuracy than their competitors. If they were really 'doing it by hand,' they would have still delivered on their core value prop of detailed results with only a few drops of blood.
- gmarx 10y ago
  Not so (if I understand your point). They were using the competitor systems on a few drops of blood. I read they were diluting the blood and then correcting the results. This is doing the same thing without the tech in the hopes that they would eventually make their tech work
  - jasonlaramburu 10y ago
    Interesting, didn't realize they were using finger pricks (few drops of blood) on machines designed for venous draws. I guess the important point is that whatever they tried didn't deliver real value to their users (i.e. they did not 'make something people want').
SilasX 10y ago
I think you're absolutely right here -- and I would add the other meme common in that headspace: "No one knows what they're doing", a meme I also hate with a passion. For all we know, Holmes could have harbored grave doubts about the viability of the tech, based on doing all the right sanity checks. But if she took the meme seriously, "hey, no one else knows what they're doing, no one knows why anything works, they just meander through life and things eventually fall into place. Once you have enough status, you're bulletproof, right?"

by gmarx 10y ago

sseveran 10y ago

Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". At its core a startup (and its founders and investors) are typically making a contrarian bet that must be right. Theranos bet that it could use a small amount of blood could be used to the same effect of much larger blood draws. It has turned out that this was not right at this point in time. If its technology worked we would not be reading this news story. Of course while every company wants to paint itself in the best light it is probably best not to engage in outright deception. If discovered that can be fatal.

mbesto 10y ago
> Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". Unfortunately, many of them start that way, especially those that reap the benefits of network effects. Anecdote: http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/ http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/22/reddit-fake-users/

jasonlaramburu 10y ago

I don't think so. As I understood, their core value proposition was that they could deliver detailed, accurate blood test results with just a few drops of blood and their proprietary analysis technology. In reality, they used traditional venous draws (way more than a few drops), and competitors' systems to deliver test results of lower accuracy than their competitors. If they were really 'doing it by hand,' they would have still delivered on their core value prop of detailed results with only a few drops of blood.

gmarx 10y ago
Not so (if I understand your point). They were using the competitor systems on a few drops of blood. I read they were diluting the blood and then correcting the results. This is doing the same thing without the tech in the hopes that they would eventually make their tech work
- jasonlaramburu 10y ago
  Interesting, didn't realize they were using finger pricks (few drops of blood) on machines designed for venous draws. I guess the important point is that whatever they tried didn't deliver real value to their users (i.e. they did not 'make something people want').

SilasX 10y ago

I think you're absolutely right here -- and I would add the other meme common in that headspace: "No one knows what they're doing", a meme I also hate with a passion. For all we know, Holmes could have harbored grave doubts about the viability of the tech, based on doing all the right sanity checks. But if she took the meme seriously, "hey, no one else knows what they're doing, no one knows why anything works, they just meander through life and things eventually fall into place. Once you have enough status, you're bulletproof, right?"