4 ms·

It's more about the consumer's satisfaction IMHO. For one reason or another, it appears that the Tesla customers are happy with their purchase. There is a cult

by mrtksn 3y ago

It's more about the consumer's satisfaction IMHO. For one reason or another, it appears that the Tesla customers are happy with their purchase. There is a cult mentality and the cult members are happy with what they got, even if it's not exactly as advertised however it's not just about the cult mentality but it's about the overall experience of the product. I think if Elizabeth Holmes delivered slick blood testing machines that work no different than those on the market(large amount if blood instead of a drop), but had better workflow and user experience, Theranos could have been a success like Tesla. She tried to imitate Steve Jobs, had she imitated Elon Musk she would have been fine. She should have had the Siemens machines modified to work with modern GUI, developed some automation for drawing large quantities of blood in a pod at the mall and integrate all that with the healthcare and keep repeating that in 2 years just a drop of blood would ne enough. The only difference between Musk and Holmes was that Musk actually delivered something that had some redeeming properties.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> I think if Elizabeth Holmes delivered slick blood testing machines that work no different than those on the market(large amount if blood instead of a drop), but had better workflow and user experience, Theranos could have been a success like Tesla. I wouldn't have said that Tesla just imitated existing car companies. Can you elaborate?
- mrtksn 3y ago
  I don't suggest that at all. What Tesla did was to create an electric car with good user experience without developing any revolutionary tech. That's what Theranos should have done, create a good user experience on the existing tech. They did wrong by betting on inventing the tech. If Tesla's prime value proposal was to invent some tech that will do something revolutionary, they would have gone bust like Theranos. Instead, they built charging network and kick ass infotainments system that made their electric cars practical.
  - suoduandao3 3y ago
    Tesla did and is betting on battery costs coming down due in part to tech under development and they could have been on the wrong side of that bet. I think unlike Theranos, battery tech has a semipredictable cost curve
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Betting on economies of scale and improved performance is quite different than betting on tech that doesn't exist. Theranos bet on doing over 200 blood test from single drop of blood, which is science fiction. They may try to solve it but there's no clear path.
      - Qwertious 3y ago
        Theranos could have been amazing; the core conceit of "cram a bunch of different experts into a room and let them riff off each other" could have been amazing. The Problem is that it didn't happen, because Elizabeth Holmes was a control-freak fraudster. She specifically siloed them to try and control information, which is the exact opposite of "put em in a room together".
  - kortilla 3y ago
    > I don't suggest that at all. What Tesla did was to create an electric car with good user experience without developing any revolutionary tech. Not sure what you mean. They are the ones that made the tech good enough for mainstream adoption. Your post reads like the “iPhone didn’t have any revolutionary tech” types.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      The iPhone didn't have any revolutionary tech, in fact, it was quite lacking when you compare what was out there and that's why many people claimed that it will fail. What iPhone had was a revolutionary user interface that provided the outstanding user experience despite lacking a lot of features and functions.
- idontknowifican 3y ago
  i think its a decent concept. had musk not purchased tesla after the roadster was built, all of his claims would have been utter bull. now that there was an entry electric car he could spin any tale or justify any hype by pointing to the one functioning model. from there it was absolutely the modern car manufacturers game, promise a concept, deliver some part of it, talk about next quarter. frankly having level 4 self driving pulled of by mercedes in california first should be the ultimate proof. merc did it in house faster without hyping it. wild
  - jsjohnst 3y ago
    > had musk not purchased tesla after the roadster was built He invested before even the first prototype roadster was built. At no point did he “purchase” Tesla.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
The cars are nice and fun to drive. The charging network is ubiquitous and works perfectly. The highway-based "autopilot" isn't revolutionary, compared to other similar products, but works competently and makes long drives easier. The FSD Beta is a hot steaming pile of garbage that will kill people given the slightest opportunity.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  Exactly, Theranos' R&D is also capable of threatening people's health by giving too inacurate results. Instead, they should have made an App that coordinates healthcare providers with service points where modified for automation Siemens machines are used. When asked about the single drop tests, just say its coming in 2 years and if the tech and science develops enough some time in the future they can do that too.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Exactly, FSD isn't comparable to theranos because theranos wasn't out there actively being the root cause of accidents and injuries like FSD was.
nova22033 3y ago
It's more about the consumer's satisfaction IMHO. You could say this about Chrome, Apple's walled garden..and a bunch of things

by mrtksn 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

> I think if Elizabeth Holmes delivered slick blood testing machines that work no different than those on the market(large amount if blood instead of a drop), but had better workflow and user experience, Theranos could have been a success like Tesla. I wouldn't have said that Tesla just imitated existing car companies. Can you elaborate?

mrtksn 3y ago
I don't suggest that at all. What Tesla did was to create an electric car with good user experience without developing any revolutionary tech. That's what Theranos should have done, create a good user experience on the existing tech. They did wrong by betting on inventing the tech. If Tesla's prime value proposal was to invent some tech that will do something revolutionary, they would have gone bust like Theranos. Instead, they built charging network and kick ass infotainments system that made their electric cars practical.
- suoduandao3 3y ago
  Tesla did and is betting on battery costs coming down due in part to tech under development and they could have been on the wrong side of that bet. I think unlike Theranos, battery tech has a semipredictable cost curve
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    Betting on economies of scale and improved performance is quite different than betting on tech that doesn't exist. Theranos bet on doing over 200 blood test from single drop of blood, which is science fiction. They may try to solve it but there's no clear path.
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      Theranos could have been amazing; the core conceit of "cram a bunch of different experts into a room and let them riff off each other" could have been amazing. The Problem is that it didn't happen, because Elizabeth Holmes was a control-freak fraudster. She specifically siloed them to try and control information, which is the exact opposite of "put em in a room together".
- kortilla 3y ago
  > I don't suggest that at all. What Tesla did was to create an electric car with good user experience without developing any revolutionary tech. Not sure what you mean. They are the ones that made the tech good enough for mainstream adoption. Your post reads like the “iPhone didn’t have any revolutionary tech” types.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    The iPhone didn't have any revolutionary tech, in fact, it was quite lacking when you compare what was out there and that's why many people claimed that it will fail. What iPhone had was a revolutionary user interface that provided the outstanding user experience despite lacking a lot of features and functions.
idontknowifican 3y ago
i think its a decent concept. had musk not purchased tesla after the roadster was built, all of his claims would have been utter bull. now that there was an entry electric car he could spin any tale or justify any hype by pointing to the one functioning model. from there it was absolutely the modern car manufacturers game, promise a concept, deliver some part of it, talk about next quarter. frankly having level 4 self driving pulled of by mercedes in california first should be the ultimate proof. merc did it in house faster without hyping it. wild
- jsjohnst 3y ago
  > had musk not purchased tesla after the roadster was built He invested before even the first prototype roadster was built. At no point did he “purchase” Tesla.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

The cars are nice and fun to drive. The charging network is ubiquitous and works perfectly. The highway-based "autopilot" isn't revolutionary, compared to other similar products, but works competently and makes long drives easier. The FSD Beta is a hot steaming pile of garbage that will kill people given the slightest opportunity.

mrtksn 3y ago
Exactly, Theranos' R&D is also capable of threatening people's health by giving too inacurate results. Instead, they should have made an App that coordinates healthcare providers with service points where modified for automation Siemens machines are used. When asked about the single drop tests, just say its coming in 2 years and if the tech and science develops enough some time in the future they can do that too.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Exactly, FSD isn't comparable to theranos because theranos wasn't out there actively being the root cause of accidents and injuries like FSD was.

nova22033 3y ago

It's more about the consumer's satisfaction IMHO. You could say this about Chrome, Apple's walled garden..and a bunch of things