Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

23andMe's Fall

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 282 posts

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#51

Post by moralestapia »

rchaud wrote: post #44
chapter11soon wrote: post #25

[flagged]

It's not clear to me that this was in any way a money-making business. The test only needs to be taken once. Selling this data to 3rd parties by way of a sneaky EULA may be part of SV culture, but it's probably not something that would get you repeat business in healthcare.

It's weird to me because the test cost was always more than enough to make it profitable. This is the kind of product where you can actually make a profit on every sale (funny I have to make that remark but it's the 2020s) ... and then ... they didn't somehow? :/

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#53

Post by rchaud »

padjo wrote: post #30
rchaud wrote: post #24

This story makes 23andme sound like a non-fraud version of Theranos, with some of the same issues around business viability, dodging the FDA, relentless PR and funding from rich friends. If a healthcare startup get shout-outs from Oprah, SNL and branded Barbie dolls, is that a bad sign?

If Theranos devices had been able to do what they claimed the business model was clear and likely very profitable. I don’t understand how anyone ever thought 23andMe had a viable business model selling a test that only needed to be done once(and apparently selling it at a loss to boot)

The "if" was the entire scam though. They hired many smart people, and every one of them said that the proposed design was physically impossible to build.

There's a reason that these complex undertakings are made by boring conglomerate companies that have decades of experience in the industry, produce many different products in that sector, and whose CEOS don't try to get on the covers of magazines.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#54

Post by hasoleju »

Shank wrote: post #33

> To create a recurring revenue stream from the tests, Wojcicki has pivoted to subscriptions. As media companies launched streaming “+” channels, Wojcicki rolled out 23andMe+, offering personalized health reports, lifestyle advice and unspecified “new reports and features as discoveries are made” for an initial $229, with annual renewals of $69. I was a heavy believer of 23andMe until this point. I answered all of th…

> think the stored data they have is their only advantage, but they don't seem to know how to leverage it.

I really wonder what happens to that data if they get acquired or shut down. The possible new owner of the data might have a completely different business case in mind. This scenario is something you usually don't consider when you give your data to a company that you trust at the moment.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#55

Post by rchaud »

moralestapia wrote: post #51
rchaud wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that this was in any way a money-making business. The test only needs to be taken once. Selling this data to 3rd parties by way of a sneaky EULA may be part of SV culture, but it's probably not something that would get you repeat business in healthcare.

It's weird to me because the test cost was always more than enough to make it profitable. This is the kind of product where you can actually make a profit on every sale (funny I have to make that remark but it's the 2020s) ... and then ... they didn't somehow? :/

They cut the cost of the test from $399 to $99, so maybe their margins were not as good. Also, it would be a red flag to investors if there weren't any tacked-on "services" on top of the main offeirng to keep squeezing customers after the initial sale.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#56

Post by MrDresden »

It is interesting to me how their stated goals and planned future trajectory sounds like what happend to 'deCODE genetics' an Icelandic genetics company founded back in 1996 with a focus of "developing novel methods to identity, treat and prevent diseases"[0].

They really were on the forefront at that time, and have been an research powerhouse ever since[1] , but struggled for some time to find a sustainable revenue stream for their discoveries. Shortly after the turn of the millenium they came out with DNA diagnostic kits, that were able to diagnose various things known or thought to increase likelihood of various illnesses and conditions. And this product even came onto the market before 23andme.

But since 2012 (I think) they have been an independent research subsidiary of the US pharmaceutical company Amgen, where Amgen then can capitalize on the research output to make the drugs in question (and probably much more that we are not privy to).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCODE_genetics

[1]: https://www.decode.com/publications/

edit: wording and spelling

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#58

Post by prakhar897 »

htrp wrote: post #3

> Roelof Botha, a 23andMe board member and partner at Sequoia Capital, said the company’s big-spending strategy made sense when money was cheap. Now that it isn’t, “we’ve had to trim and focus on a smaller number of projects.” > Sequoia, which invested $145 million in 23andMe, still holds all its shares, he said. Today they are worth $18 million. Interesting that they weren't forced to liquidate/distribute the shares…

It could've been liquidated and reinvested into a continuation fund.

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#59

Post by singularity2001 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #39
ackbar03 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have thought they were pretty well positioned to find new targets for currently untreatable diseases. But maybe they don't quite have the capacity needed to target specific diseases and/or data not granular and clean enough, or not enough capital/runway suitable for that kind of stuff. If they had the sequences for people with diseases such as alzeimers/Parkinson, they could just look for common mutations and…

It is not like they are doing real genomics. It’s devilishly hard to find genes responsible for conditions like schizophrenia, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, etc. The last thing you need is mountains of low quality data. Attempting to discover drugs is a proven way to make a small fortune by starting with a large fortune. Everything north of the Charles River in Boston would vanish if people stopped believing thoug…

mountains of low quality data is often enough for deep learning

Re: 23andMe's Fall

#60

Post by michaelt »

nirvael wrote: post #7

Seems like 23andMe is two businesses: consumer and a B2B data business. The consumer side is clearly struggling because of the problems mentioned in the article (they only need one test in their life, public perception is bad because their security has had breaches). So this needs a pivot where you can change the public's perception from a one-time test to continuous health monitoring through blood markers or somethi…

> But why not focus on the B2B side? Sell access to their databases. I'm sure computational biology and/or pharma companies need this information.

Are you sure?

I mean, presumably there are different types of DNA testing. Doesn't 23andme run basically the cheapest test they can get away with? A user can't tell if the test measured 16 bytes or 1.6 gigabytes of genetic information, and if I was trying to launch a consumer DNA geneology service, I'd want to get network effects, so I'd want a test that was very easily affordable.

Who says their records are thorough enough to be valuable to drug companies?

Post reply on HN