21–30 of 35 posts
there is no other explanation for why she isn't yet in jail for fraud other than the power and influence of her investors who are in bed with her, but far more powerful and influential than she is.
A pretty good example for why this founder as perment dictator corporate structure is really short sided. Nobody can fire Holmes since she controls the company herself. Is Theranos cash flow positive? Or do they still rely on investments? Who would invest now.
If she owns* it, why shouldn't she able to stay? If she didn't control the company I would imagine any competent board would boot her, but she does, so she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's what she chooses to do. * in the sense that she controls 50% + 1 of the votes
Well there's the issue, a lot of these companies distort their ownership structures with multiple classes of shares in order to get around the usual 1 share, 1 vote scheme.
So does the moral principle of ownership resulting in control still apply when they may technically "own" very little?
I am not surprised. Theranos exists as a cult of personality around Holmes and without her, it would be obvious that they provide no value over their larger, more efficient competitors.
I was not aware of the cult of personality aspect. Is she a remarkable leader? visionary?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was not aware of the cult of personality aspect. Is she a remarkable leader? visionary?
The cult of personality was the only reason for Theranos existing. Holmes is a young, rich Stanford dropout who idolizes Steve Jobs down to the sweaters, lives like a monk while consuming elaborate vegan smoothies, and claimed to be upending generations of practice with the power of outside-the-box thinking. She raised money and endorsements by being Silicon Valley's wet dream, while the scientific establishment's co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read at numerous points that they were using the older machines they were supposed to be "disrupting" the industry away from to perform tests, perhaps the Arizona lab is where they have those kept? Either that or the Arizona regulations are just a little looser.
> Either that or the Arizona regulations are just a little looser. Arizona is still in the United States, so it has the same federal regulations ;-) Who knows, though, maybe they were just busy with the smaller lab and haven't got to Arizona yet.
I am not surprised. Theranos exists as a cult of personality around Holmes and without her, it would be obvious that they provide no value over their larger, more efficient competitors.
I was not aware of the cult of personality aspect. Is she a remarkable leader? visionary?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was not aware of the cult of personality aspect. Is she a remarkable leader? visionary?
The cult of personality was the only reason for Theranos existing. Holmes is a young, rich Stanford dropout who idolizes Steve Jobs down to the sweaters, lives like a monk while consuming elaborate vegan smoothies, and claimed to be upending generations of practice with the power of outside-the-box thinking. She raised money and endorsements by being Silicon Valley's wet dream, while the scientific establishment's co…
> Still, last week’s news raises the question of what will happen to the company’s other clinical laboratory in Scottsdale, Arizona, at which 90 percent of the company’s tests are processed. So far, that lab has passed regulatory muster, and the company said it will remain open for now. I find it interesting that their Arizona lab passed...would this imply they do indeed have a legitimate product?
I read at numerous points that they were using the older machines they were supposed to be "disrupting" the industry away from to perform tests, perhaps the Arizona lab is where they have those kept? Either that or the Arizona regulations are just a little looser.
Theranos halted the use of its finger-stick draws, collected in a small tube called a nanotainer, after the FDA declared the container was a medical device that should be regulated. That decision did not affect the company's Scottsdale lab, which exclusively uses FDA-approved blood analyzers and instruments made by companies such as Siemens and Olympus.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumers/2015...
A pretty good example for why this founder as perment dictator corporate structure is really short sided. Nobody can fire Holmes since she controls the company herself. Is Theranos cash flow positive? Or do they still rely on investments? Who would invest now.
If she owns* it, why shouldn't she able to stay? If she didn't control the company I would imagine any competent board would boot her, but she does, so she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's what she chooses to do. * in the sense that she controls 50% + 1 of the votes