4 ms·

How about Tyler Shultz? The main whistleblower and grandson of George Shultz. He was working at Theranos and realized they were a giant fraud. He lost his job,

How about Tyler Shultz? The main whistleblower and grandson of George Shultz. He was working at Theranos and realized they were a giant fraud. He lost his job, was harassed by lawyers, he and his parents almost had to sell their house to pay legal fees, his grandfather wouldn't speak to him anymore, etc.

recharged93 8y ago
Basically the gov't employee, son, and likely others we don't know about lost their jobs and even blacklisted. I say 90% of VC back companies are blowing smoke to the endpoint investor, public and consumer. 100% of those companies have miracle products that scale forever and work... In 1 specific ise case: the demo booth. They oversell. I see 2 out of 10 startups bring a viable product to the global 2000 table. Spacex: we can go to Mars, but haven't even launched a Mars rocket. Google: AI is here, and the product? Waymo, logs millions of miles, is just sunny conditions? The common strategy: lie(aka promise), sell the future, hopefully you get the solution and hit time to market. Holmes was following the same playbook, BUT just gave up, and that's got her investors and comsumers furious. If she apologized, AND stuck with it, investors would still back her, and the public flac would have subsided....VCs were sold on her future. On the opposite end, aside from real mistakes is a company like Apple: they sell the future and deliver.
- home_boi 8y ago
  > Spacex: we can go to Mars, but haven't even launched a Mars rocket. Google: AI is here, and the product? Waymo, logs millions of miles, is just sunny conditions? I don't think that is their literal message and goal. SpaceX's real mission is to innovate space travel which they've been capable of doing and have demonstrated with clear achievements. SpaceX's revenue is in the billions and is very close to profitable. It most likely would be profitable if it wasn't constantly spending money to expand like Amazon in its early years.
- aptwebapps 8y ago
  I don't think those examples match very well. Theranos really didn't have anything that worked. Spacex has rockets that work and satisfied customers. They aren't going to Mars yet, but most of their current satellite launch customers probably really don't care. And of the various self-driving car efforts, Waymo seems one of the most careful, both in their engineering and PR. I don't recall them making any claims they can't back up, but I may have missed some.
- austenallred 8y ago
  The difference is that SpaceX realizes the goal is aspirational, and isn’t signing people up for doomed rides to Mars right now.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Exactly. If SpaceX started taking deposits for a Mars ride within the next two years there would be a problem.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Holmes was not following the same playbook, there's a big difference. What you say holds true for the early investors who may have been sold the future expectations, however, long after that Holmes recruited investors by stating that they have a "working Mars rocket" that's being used right now, when in fact it was smoke&mirrors using altered Siemens machines instead of the claimed Theranos technology. The difference between saying "we expect to have X working within a year" and "we have had X for a year" is that if X doesn't work out, the second sentence is a crime of fraud. And Holmes was on the wrong end of this difference. They're not prosecuting for the broken hopes of 2004-2006 investors (who were sold a future that didn't materialize, oh well), they're prosecuting for misleading the investors of, say, 2014 by lying about the achievements of their first 10 years.
godelmachine 8y ago
Agree on Tyler Schultz.
meowface 8y ago
Extremely brave what he did, especially when it means combatting his own (extremely wealthy and powerful) grandfather. The court of public opinion and the history books will see him as the hero in the end, at least. And he's since started his own medtech company. In the short-term, his life was a nightmare and Holmes and Balwani held all the cards, but in the long-term he'll probably be successful and considered honorable while Holmes and Balwani will be disgraced at best and convicted felons at worst.

recharged93 8y ago

Basically the gov't employee, son, and likely others we don't know about lost their jobs and even blacklisted. I say 90% of VC back companies are blowing smoke to the endpoint investor, public and consumer. 100% of those companies have miracle products that scale forever and work... In 1 specific ise case: the demo booth. They oversell. I see 2 out of 10 startups bring a viable product to the global 2000 table. Spacex: we can go to Mars, but haven't even launched a Mars rocket. Google: AI is here, and the product? Waymo, logs millions of miles, is just sunny conditions? The common strategy: lie(aka promise), sell the future, hopefully you get the solution and hit time to market. Holmes was following the same playbook, BUT just gave up, and that's got her investors and comsumers furious. If she apologized, AND stuck with it, investors would still back her, and the public flac would have subsided....VCs were sold on her future. On the opposite end, aside from real mistakes is a company like Apple: they sell the future and deliver.

home_boi 8y ago
> Spacex: we can go to Mars, but haven't even launched a Mars rocket. Google: AI is here, and the product? Waymo, logs millions of miles, is just sunny conditions? I don't think that is their literal message and goal. SpaceX's real mission is to innovate space travel which they've been capable of doing and have demonstrated with clear achievements. SpaceX's revenue is in the billions and is very close to profitable. It most likely would be profitable if it wasn't constantly spending money to expand like Amazon in its early years.
aptwebapps 8y ago
I don't think those examples match very well. Theranos really didn't have anything that worked. Spacex has rockets that work and satisfied customers. They aren't going to Mars yet, but most of their current satellite launch customers probably really don't care. And of the various self-driving car efforts, Waymo seems one of the most careful, both in their engineering and PR. I don't recall them making any claims they can't back up, but I may have missed some.
austenallred 8y ago
The difference is that SpaceX realizes the goal is aspirational, and isn’t signing people up for doomed rides to Mars right now.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Exactly. If SpaceX started taking deposits for a Mars ride within the next two years there would be a problem.
PeterisP 8y ago
Holmes was not following the same playbook, there's a big difference. What you say holds true for the early investors who may have been sold the future expectations, however, long after that Holmes recruited investors by stating that they have a "working Mars rocket" that's being used right now, when in fact it was smoke&mirrors using altered Siemens machines instead of the claimed Theranos technology. The difference between saying "we expect to have X working within a year" and "we have had X for a year" is that if X doesn't work out, the second sentence is a crime of fraud. And Holmes was on the wrong end of this difference. They're not prosecuting for the broken hopes of 2004-2006 investors (who were sold a future that didn't materialize, oh well), they're prosecuting for misleading the investors of, say, 2014 by lying about the achievements of their first 10 years.

godelmachine 8y ago

Agree on Tyler Schultz.

meowface 8y ago

Extremely brave what he did, especially when it means combatting his own (extremely wealthy and powerful) grandfather. The court of public opinion and the history books will see him as the hero in the end, at least. And he's since started his own medtech company. In the short-term, his life was a nightmare and Holmes and Balwani held all the cards, but in the long-term he'll probably be successful and considered honorable while Holmes and Balwani will be disgraced at best and convicted felons at worst.