> All these companies tried to improve the experience and reduce costs, regardless of the nature of the business being internet or manufacturing based. No, The

> All these companies tried to improve the experience and reduce costs, regardless of the nature of the business being internet or manufacturing based. No, Theranos did not do that. They claimed that's what they were trying to do, but they were, in reality, marketing a fraudulent product that did not work. This is very simple. It is also a very important distinction, and it's worrying that many people here seem not to get it. This is not a "they tried and failed with the best of intentions" situation. This is not a typical failed-startup situation. This is not a product-market-fit issue. This is a company that claimed to be improving the state of the art but was actually engaging in a deliberate deception. You don't have to know the "motive of the people involved" to understand that Theranos' situation is fundamentally ethically different from that of a well-intentioned company that was unable to deliver on its promises. This isn't a difference in degree (of money involved or people defrauded or whatever), it is a qualitative difference. It's deeply disturbing to me that yourself and many others seem unable to see that.