3 ms·

Wow, downvotes. Just to make it clear- I didn't want to disrespect anything you did or the original article (which I did upvote - something I don't do very oft

by guylhem 15y ago

Wow, downvotes. Just to make it clear- I didn't want to disrespect anything you did or the original article (which I did upvote - something I don't do very often), but I like to dream big and I'd like do something good - real good. If you want some numbers and a problem, say improving the healthcare of at least half a million persons in a first world country where there are no so many low hanging fruits. I'd think about say merging lab results from various source and running predictive analysis software or gathering imagery (say CT scans) and see if some computer vision techniques could outperform human interpretation - such as detecting abnormals images very early on. Things like that would require a decent size and funding. Then I see DrChrono (YC funded BTW) - wow, a glorified ipad data entry form. It is interesting and will certainly do some good, but it seems not so ambitious unless they plan to keep the data and exploit it later, but I don't think HIPAA would look the other way if they did :-/ So you could certainly be right, but at the moment I believe that most lifestyles business aim at low impact problems, if only for a matter of scale. And to be crystal clear on that - I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

karterk 15y ago
The way I see it, it does not matter if 100 businesses are improving the lives of 1 million people at a time, or 1 business is improving the lives of 100 million people at one go. Every problem that people pay are willing to pay for to help someone fix is in some way decreasing inefficiency and improving productivity in some way. Overall, they will add up. Ofc, there are also large problems that require funding etc. but when you say something like lifestyle business means to me a life with a very low impact - you are looking at the micro picture, and not the macro one.
patio11 15y ago
Ooh nevermind examples of low-impact VC businesses, I like that example even more. You can improve the healthcare of over 500,000 Americans by successfully outcompeting the nation's primary healthcare communications and recordkeeping technology: Mk1 Reprocessed Wood Pulp. If you think that glorified data entry doesn't improve healthcare, you're optimizing for sexy but not really optimizing for impact. A similarly unsexy problem is making sure people actually come to the doctor's office by telephoning them to remind them to come to the doctor's office. (The folks who most urgently need to be at the doctor's office are least capable of successfully making that happen without outside assistance.) This is approximately 2% a technical problem, 3% a compliance problem, and 95% a sales problem. You're welcome to your own guesstimate of whether one can hit 500,000 patients served without taking VC funding. I have my own guesstimate. This post brought to you by the letters N, D, and A and the number $LOTS.
- guylhem 15y ago
  Changing the medium (dead wood to electrons) will not IMHO make a difference. However the "unsexy" problem you mention is an excellent example. I wouldn't call it unsexy. It's something that would be nice and interesting, even if low on technical complexity, and there is a clear and mesurable outcome.

by guylhem 15y ago

karterk 15y ago

The way I see it, it does not matter if 100 businesses are improving the lives of 1 million people at a time, or 1 business is improving the lives of 100 million people at one go. Every problem that people pay are willing to pay for to help someone fix is in some way decreasing inefficiency and improving productivity in some way. Overall, they will add up. Ofc, there are also large problems that require funding etc. but when you say something like lifestyle business means to me a life with a very low impact - you are looking at the micro picture, and not the macro one.

patio11 15y ago

Ooh nevermind examples of low-impact VC businesses, I like that example even more. You can improve the healthcare of over 500,000 Americans by successfully outcompeting the nation's primary healthcare communications and recordkeeping technology: Mk1 Reprocessed Wood Pulp. If you think that glorified data entry doesn't improve healthcare, you're optimizing for sexy but not really optimizing for impact. A similarly unsexy problem is making sure people actually come to the doctor's office by telephoning them to remind them to come to the doctor's office. (The folks who most urgently need to be at the doctor's office are least capable of successfully making that happen without outside assistance.) This is approximately 2% a technical problem, 3% a compliance problem, and 95% a sales problem. You're welcome to your own guesstimate of whether one can hit 500,000 patients served without taking VC funding. I have my own guesstimate. This post brought to you by the letters N, D, and A and the number $LOTS.

guylhem 15y ago
Changing the medium (dead wood to electrons) will not IMHO make a difference. However the "unsexy" problem you mention is an excellent example. I wouldn't call it unsexy. It's something that would be nice and interesting, even if low on technical complexity, and there is a clear and mesurable outcome.