4 ms·

I think the lesson to be learned here, obvious though as it is, is that there doesn't seem to be any difference in the early stages between startup ideas that a

by Jun8 8y ago

I think the lesson to be learned here, obvious though as it is, is that there doesn't seem to be any difference in the early stages between startup ideas that are delusional, which seems to be case for Holmes, and those that are "frighteningly ambitious" (http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html). The execution determines which is which.

untog 8y ago
I think perhaps there isn't any difference in external appearance between the two, but internally the difference should be striking. And an organisation like YC should have enough visibility into the internals to know which it is.
mgkimsal 8y ago
It may be that, especially in the early days, "getting funding" is equated with "success", regardless of (or perhaps even in spite of) any actual results (product shipped, customer count, revenue, product/service results, etc). At some point those results matter, but we still have this notion that getting funding (or just lots of revenue) is a direct indicator of actual success.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> the lesson to be learned here, obvious though as it is, is that there doesn't seem to be any difference in the early stages between startup ideas that are delusional, which seems to be case for Holmes, and those that are "frighteningly ambitious" At the early stages, sure, there’s no difference. Genius and madness are only differentiable with hindsight. At the point you’re rolling out broken medical devices, lying to investors about the Army buying your kit, and deploying unthinking attack dogs like David Boies and George Schulz on whistleblowers (one of whom was the latter’s grandkid), there is a huge difference.
gwbas1c 8y ago
The distinction is usually painfully obvious to people who understand the field. But, in this case, Holmes wouldn't pivot to more reasonable products that fit into her vision. It looks like her scientists did rather excellent work and made great incremental improvements in the blood testing field. Had she capitalized on those improvements; we'd see her as a success story.
- janj 8y ago
  I've been trying to figure out if Theranos had produced anything of value. Do you have sources you can share that describe these incremental improvements?
  - gwbas1c 8y ago
    Read through "Bad Blood" by John Carreyrou. He describes a lot of the research that went on by Theranos engineers. There were attempts to do good work by people who believe in the vision. Now, to put things in perspective, if you're anywhere near or over middle age, you've probably had blood drawn. It's freaking scary every time the needle is pushed in for me, and I frankly had to flat out reject my doctor's request to get blood tests every 2-3 months. (I got a second opinion.) If these tests could be done with a much smaller amount of blood, things would be much easier. I'd be much more willing to run into my local CVS for whatever test my doctor wanted if the test involved a lot less blood. That's why the engineers believed in the vision and did a lot of good work to try to lower the amount of blood needed for tests.

by Jun8 8y ago

untog 8y ago

I think perhaps there isn't any difference in external appearance between the two, but internally the difference should be striking. And an organisation like YC should have enough visibility into the internals to know which it is.

mgkimsal 8y ago

It may be that, especially in the early days, "getting funding" is equated with "success", regardless of (or perhaps even in spite of) any actual results (product shipped, customer count, revenue, product/service results, etc). At some point those results matter, but we still have this notion that getting funding (or just lots of revenue) is a direct indicator of actual success.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> the lesson to be learned here, obvious though as it is, is that there doesn't seem to be any difference in the early stages between startup ideas that are delusional, which seems to be case for Holmes, and those that are "frighteningly ambitious" At the early stages, sure, there’s no difference. Genius and madness are only differentiable with hindsight. At the point you’re rolling out broken medical devices, lying to investors about the Army buying your kit, and deploying unthinking attack dogs like David Boies and George Schulz on whistleblowers (one of whom was the latter’s grandkid), there is a huge difference.

gwbas1c 8y ago

The distinction is usually painfully obvious to people who understand the field. But, in this case, Holmes wouldn't pivot to more reasonable products that fit into her vision. It looks like her scientists did rather excellent work and made great incremental improvements in the blood testing field. Had she capitalized on those improvements; we'd see her as a success story.

janj 8y ago
I've been trying to figure out if Theranos had produced anything of value. Do you have sources you can share that describe these incremental improvements?
- gwbas1c 8y ago
  Read through "Bad Blood" by John Carreyrou. He describes a lot of the research that went on by Theranos engineers. There were attempts to do good work by people who believe in the vision. Now, to put things in perspective, if you're anywhere near or over middle age, you've probably had blood drawn. It's freaking scary every time the needle is pushed in for me, and I frankly had to flat out reject my doctor's request to get blood tests every 2-3 months. (I got a second opinion.) If these tests could be done with a much smaller amount of blood, things would be much easier. I'd be much more willing to run into my local CVS for whatever test my doctor wanted if the test involved a lot less blood. That's why the engineers believed in the vision and did a lot of good work to try to lower the amount of blood needed for tests.