4 ms·

The technology really works and is generating results at a rapid pace. This will absolutely not be the next Theranos, although you may be right that there are i

by eggie 9y ago

The technology really works and is generating results at a rapid pace. This will absolutely not be the next Theranos, although you may be right that there are issues of burnrate and maybe even mismanagement. To me the fact that they have a patent monopoly on "putting DNA through a protein pore with voltage sensing" is tragic. Who knows were we would be today if these patents had been granted to the public domain.

sdcuevas 9y ago
Let's assume the company statements are true, they are shipping on time; what is the break even point for shipping $1,000 starter kits, flow cells, and sample prep items? How many devices are they shipping? What's their revenue? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breakevenanalysis.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breakevenanalysis.asp Are they anywhere near break even or are they going to require another large infusion of venture capital and can Nanopore find these new investors?
- bayesian_horse 9y ago
  Their sales data is not available. The MinION program does not seem to be designed to finance the company, though it might actually be profitable. The PromethION on the other hand, is selling faster than they can ship the devices. Their valuation is not about short term sales. Their technology really is somewhat of a holy grail. There is no "simpler" way to read DNA in terms of technology. Everything else involves complicated biochemistry. Illumina beats Nanopore Technologies right now because of the scale of their machines. But they can't scale them down much further without losing performance. The most efficient Illumina machines will always be cupboards or bigger. No competitor can come up with something better than ONT. Nothing smaller, for certain. The only way to beat Oxford Nanopore in the future will be to implement a very similar nanopore sequencing scheme.
  - comstock 9y ago
    The accounts of all UK companies are filed publicly. They had about 1M GBP of sales in 2016 from memory. I would guess with overheads, each unit is currently sold at a loss. Illumina doesn’t beat nanopore because of the “scale” it beats it because the technology produces fundamentally higher accuracy data. The error rate on Nanopore reads is >10%. Even on first generation Illumina machines the error rate was 1%, and is now significantly lower. Oxford Nanopore have been working on this for 15 years, this is the best they can do. It might be possible to create a Nanopore (maybe solid state, not protein) system with a lower error rate, but I think they have little hope of doing it.
- comstock 9y ago
  They’re going to need more money. I think they’d need to sell >10,000 units a month. That is if they are making any kind of profit. Unfortunately I don’t think there’s a market for anything like that number of flow cells.
comstock 9y ago
I think they like to say they have a patent monopoly, but I don’t believe they do. Genia (which also has issues) are developing a protein nanopore platform. Illumina (see recent IP battle with Oxford Nanopore) also have key IP in this space (for mspA).

by eggie 9y ago

sdcuevas 9y ago

Let's assume the company statements are true, they are shipping on time; what is the break even point for shipping $1,000 starter kits, flow cells, and sample prep items? How many devices are they shipping? What's their revenue? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breakevenanalysis.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breakevenanalysis.asp Are they anywhere near break even or are they going to require another large infusion of venture capital and can Nanopore find these new investors?

bayesian_horse 9y ago
Their sales data is not available. The MinION program does not seem to be designed to finance the company, though it might actually be profitable. The PromethION on the other hand, is selling faster than they can ship the devices. Their valuation is not about short term sales. Their technology really is somewhat of a holy grail. There is no "simpler" way to read DNA in terms of technology. Everything else involves complicated biochemistry. Illumina beats Nanopore Technologies right now because of the scale of their machines. But they can't scale them down much further without losing performance. The most efficient Illumina machines will always be cupboards or bigger. No competitor can come up with something better than ONT. Nothing smaller, for certain. The only way to beat Oxford Nanopore in the future will be to implement a very similar nanopore sequencing scheme.
- comstock 9y ago
  The accounts of all UK companies are filed publicly. They had about 1M GBP of sales in 2016 from memory. I would guess with overheads, each unit is currently sold at a loss. Illumina doesn’t beat nanopore because of the “scale” it beats it because the technology produces fundamentally higher accuracy data. The error rate on Nanopore reads is >10%. Even on first generation Illumina machines the error rate was 1%, and is now significantly lower. Oxford Nanopore have been working on this for 15 years, this is the best they can do. It might be possible to create a Nanopore (maybe solid state, not protein) system with a lower error rate, but I think they have little hope of doing it.
comstock 9y ago
They’re going to need more money. I think they’d need to sell >10,000 units a month. That is if they are making any kind of profit. Unfortunately I don’t think there’s a market for anything like that number of flow cells.

comstock 9y ago

I think they like to say they have a patent monopoly, but I don’t believe they do. Genia (which also has issues) are developing a protein nanopore platform. Illumina (see recent IP battle with Oxford Nanopore) also have key IP in this space (for mspA).