3 ms·

> 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), b

> 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.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Its capacitive touchscreen was revolutionary. That's what enabled the UI to be done in a different way. This isn't some "great design creates great product" thing. It's the underlying tech that did it, and if the UI had been different, it would been just as revolutionary. I would argue that the addition of the app store is what made the iPhone really jump phones forward.
      - mrtksn 3y ago
        Nope, capacitive screens and multitouch were 30 years old tech. Sure, Apple did engineering to actually make it into the product they shipped but that wasn't what Apple invented with iPhone.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Everything is built from something else. Not doing the fundamental science that leads to a product doesn't mean that the product itself isn't innovative. Apple's interface elements[0] and interactions[1] were no doubt derived from elsewhere too. Getting UI elements on a screen wasn't new. Cramming a capacative touchscreen into a phone was very new. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/button https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/bu... [1] http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I very much disagree. They didn't just make cars "that work no different than those on the market". They jump-started mass-market electrification of cars, solving who knows how many problems along the way, in technology, business, regulation, manufacturing, etc etc. That's very different to making another Ford Focus.
  - mrtksn 3y ago
    I never said they did another Ford focus. They used available tech to make an electric car that didn't suck in a way all other electric cars sucked.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > What Tesla did was to create an electric car with good user experience without developing any revolutionary tech Which would be fine, if they weren't claiming robotaxis any day now.
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.

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.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Its capacitive touchscreen was revolutionary. That's what enabled the UI to be done in a different way. This isn't some "great design creates great product" thing. It's the underlying tech that did it, and if the UI had been different, it would been just as revolutionary. I would argue that the addition of the app store is what made the iPhone really jump phones forward.
    - mrtksn 3y ago
      Nope, capacitive screens and multitouch were 30 years old tech. Sure, Apple did engineering to actually make it into the product they shipped but that wasn't what Apple invented with iPhone.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Everything is built from something else. Not doing the fundamental science that leads to a product doesn't mean that the product itself isn't innovative. Apple's interface elements[0] and interactions[1] were no doubt derived from elsewhere too. Getting UI elements on a screen wasn't new. Cramming a capacative touchscreen into a phone was very new. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/button https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/bu... [1] http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
robertlagrant 3y ago
I very much disagree. They didn't just make cars "that work no different than those on the market". They jump-started mass-market electrification of cars, solving who knows how many problems along the way, in technology, business, regulation, manufacturing, etc etc. That's very different to making another Ford Focus.
- mrtksn 3y ago
  I never said they did another Ford focus. They used available tech to make an electric car that didn't suck in a way all other electric cars sucked.
rsynnott 3y ago
> What Tesla did was to create an electric car with good user experience without developing any revolutionary tech Which would be fine, if they weren't claiming robotaxis any day now.

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.