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

Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#61

Post by codezero »

randycupertino wrote: post #60
codezero wrote: post #2

There has been a lot of critical attention towards theranos. I have no opinion whether it is granted or not, in general I feel critical is always good, but the volume is so high, does anyone have any insight into the intense scrutiny theranos is receiving?

It's because Theranos with it's pretty blonde Stanford dropout founder was an absolute media darling for 7 months to a year, could do no wrong, had heaps of fawning puff piece press. Now that their questionable tech has come to light, the press feels burned and is vengeful of being caught giving them a blowjob without due diligence. So now the media swings the opposite way and lashes out at Theranos to overcompensate…

again, why does the attractiveness and hair color of the founder have anything to do with this discussion?

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#62

Post by empressplay »

codezero wrote: post #25
bigchewy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, by and large the incumbents comply with regulations, use industry standard equipment that has been tested and approved as being accurate for its intended use, etc.

Ok so if Theranos is using the same equipment and tests, what are they doing wrong?

Theranos' initial value proposition was to provide a blood test that didn't require intravenous draw, which most people don't like because it's painful and off-putting. They proposed technology that could do most common blood tests from a drop of blood, collected from a pin-prick.

Their initial value proposition was not that they would simply open blood collection sites in pharmacies or supermarkets. That could have been a serviceable proposition had it been theirs, but it wouldn't have justified their huge valuation. Their valuation is based on the idea that they would be able to do most blood tests from a drop of blood, collected from a pinprick. They have failed to accomplish this.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#63

Post by Dr_tldr »

mattmanser wrote: post #29
codezero wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of existing technologies seems like an unimportant factor. Uber uses cars, more to the point they started using private limo contractors and still do. They nonetheless provided a service above and beyond what you could get before. Is Theranos using existing technologies and still not providing value above the incumbents? This is what I really want to know. I just don't know.

Unimportant factor? A better comparison would be if Uber had claimed they had self-driving car before they'd even entered the market, had started doing rides, and then it turned out Lyft drivers were surreptitiously hidden inside the front of the car and were actually driving instead of the mystical self-driving computer. That's how it looks at the moment with the way Theranos is behaving.

...I think you just came up with an amazing new startup. All we need now are some Iron Man halloween costumes and some disgruntled Lyft drivers.

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#64

Post by empressplay »

Some commenters are making me wonder if Theranos' new narrative is that their value proposition is opening blood collection facilities in drug stores / supermarkets.

If it is, and Theranos feels this "new" value proposition is enough to justify their valuation, I'm not sure what they're smoking, but I would sure like some!

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#65

Post by anon8418 »

chillwaves wrote: post #47
danso wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The origin story of Theranos is carved from pure Silicon Valley mythril: 19-year-old drops out of Stanford to build a massively disruptive startup and in short-order, receives hundreds of millions in funding and near-decaunicorn valuation. On top of that, the founder is a photogenic woman who dresses and speaks and acts as if she were Steve Jobs incarnate. And unlike Facebook and most other tech startups, Theranos wa…

This is the most legendary synopsis of our times. Seriously, the use of mythril? Brilliant and the rest is so on point. It's hard to believe this whole thing is real. I feel like we are living in a sitcom.

Lots of similar stories... Check out UBeam. It's basically Theranos-lite: outspoken female founder (also light on the technical credentials), revolutionary vision/product-promises (wireless charging), and tier one VCs (~$30mm raised from a16z, Marissa Mayer, Mark Cuban, etc).

Like Theranos, the story is coming apart at the seams... I haven't seen this discussed here but UBeam is quietly raising another round via some Israeli equity crowdfunding site. Crazy!!! This after raising Series A from a16z!

Will be interesting to see how many of these unicorn type startups are around this time next year.

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#66

Post by [deleted] »

codezero wrote: post #61
randycupertino wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because Theranos with it's pretty blonde Stanford dropout founder was an absolute media darling for 7 months to a year, could do no wrong, had heaps of fawning puff piece press. Now that their questionable tech has come to light, the press feels burned and is vengeful of being caught giving them a blowjob without due diligence. So now the media swings the opposite way and lashes out at Theranos to overcompensate…

again, why does the attractiveness and hair color of the founder have anything to do with this discussion?

[deleted]

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#67

Post by icelancer »

adevine wrote: post #59
icelancer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there ANYTHING like this? Been searching casually for it but no luck. Would love any leads on this.

https://www.anylabtestnow.com . Unfortunately, the tests are quite expensive. I believe they need to basically get a BS prescription for the tests, which adds to the expense. Theranos specifically lobbied Arizona to get the law changed so that consumers could order their own tests. I hope other states follow suit, and I hope the Theranos drama doesn't make other states think this is a bad idea.

Yeah, these tests are way too expensive. Ugh.

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#68

Post by anon8418 »

codezero wrote: post #61
randycupertino wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because Theranos with it's pretty blonde Stanford dropout founder was an absolute media darling for 7 months to a year, could do no wrong, had heaps of fawning puff piece press. Now that their questionable tech has come to light, the press feels burned and is vengeful of being caught giving them a blowjob without due diligence. So now the media swings the opposite way and lashes out at Theranos to overcompensate…

again, why does the attractiveness and hair color of the founder have anything to do with this discussion?

Because it was an influencing factor in the initial media infatuation with Theranos.

If u goto their website a lot of the media and copy is very founder-specific. Almost like they are trying to build some cult of personality around her.

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#69

Post by anon8418 »

codezero wrote: post #52
danso wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being forthright about the scope of their technological progress and innovation, which is ostensibly the basis of its $9 billion valuation.

Who must they be forthright to? I mean, I agree, obviously, but if they aren't forthright and their investors are still paying, the investors suffer, how is the consumer suffering here? Are they promising a product that they aren't delivering? Sorry, I know I'm being difficult here, I would really love to chat with someone who is very invested either for or against, or both, this approach, so that I can understand be…

Well they should at least be forthright with customers/patients. There are lots of anecdotal blog posts (one by former Apple vp of engineering) about the accuracy of their tests for example. Remember this is about people's health, so you can imagine the sensitivity here compared to your usual consumer type of startup.

In regards to the rest of your comment (as well as your other posts littering this thread), your not being difficult as so much as lazy :P

A quick Google search and 15 mins of reading will catch you up to speed about Theranos and all the (negative) attention they are currently receiving in the press. Start with the series of recent WSJ articles about Theranos.

Re: Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time

#70

Post by Frondo »

codezero wrote: post #57
adevine wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their "nanotainer". Theranos claimed they could do all sorts of blood tests with just a finger prick and a few drops of blood. The original WSJ article found they were doing normal venous draws, performing the tests on other companies' machines.

OK, did they deliver the results that were expected of the tests? Is the main issue that they said, finger prick, but, it didn't take a finger prick? That's a serious main issue, but I'm just trying to determine if that is the main point of contention. Also, that doing such a draw is exactly what incumbents do. Thanks for clearing this up.

It really does seem like you're trolling here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

Theranos, the company, has claimed to be building an amazing new testing system. They're not just about getting blood test centers set up in grocery stores, they're very specifically all about a new technology that gives consumers access to a lot of tests all at once, from a pin-prick blood sample. Not an old-style blood sample from a vein, and not this piecemeal "we mostly use the current equipment, but then we can also use our own" weirdness.

The business was "fancy new tech, disrupting health care," not "we'll take blood from your vein in a grocery store".

If you're going to try and say, well, ok, but maybe they're just pivoting to using standard equipment but now it's in a grocery store, I guess you could say that...

Post reply on HN