Elizabeth Holmes is finally presenting her technology to scientists
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The medical indistry has been dodgy as fuck (no excuse) but also technically illiterate. My personal hypothesis is that because America and many other nations require so much education to become a doctor, there is little time to learn about programming/tech.
However, the point is, they made some pretty bad mustakes but this is why we have venture capital. Theranos is 13 years old. It irritates me when outrage manifests as an I told you so. So much has been learned between 03 and now, that to come in at the height of an obvious scandal and pour on like they are building angry birds pisses me off. I hope they succeed.
If Holmes did something horrible and the internals of the company rot out, and the tech fails, that sucks. BUT, I hope VCs still step up and take big bets like this because these are gge ideas that change the world. In fact, if on balance, the company only fails because of bad bysiness and ethical decisions, the outpouring of talent and tech into the space could be great.
tl;dr I would rather try and miss on a big bet, than win on a tiny one.
Primarily, "I would rather miss on a big bet than win on a tiny one" Since I see this not as "winning a big bet" so much as e.g. "winning a big bet on Enron." The fact that you summarize "if holmes did something horrible and the internals rot out" as "that sucks" demonstrates the difference in our views. That's not a "that sucks" to me, that's a "bring down the goddamn hammer." I've seen techs I respect and look up to leagues beyond anyone involved in theranos leadership, not even just speaking of Holmes, but they aren't given a FRACTION of the leeway I think Theranos has gotten for consistent breaches of trust, integrity, and legality.
Theranos is not an "I told you so" for me, it's an example of how different the playing field is for different people, and _THAT_ pisses me off far more than any amount of angry birds rebuilding. This next statement won't earn me any allies here, but after significant contemplation I've come to the conclusion I hope they fail, because otherwise conveys (yet again) the message that you can start with one foot in a reprehensible place and still profit enormously.
To be very clear, I agree with your hope that it does not poison future VC, but I hope it causes people to both look deeper and more comprehensively before leaping. I also agree that there are good people there, and I dislike the thought of them taking part in the pain, but this is part and parcel with my "there should have been more due diligence", since otherwise Theranos would likely not have scaled as far, as fast, or touched as many people as it did when it came time for that bubble to pop. To forgive such a level of misdeed because the recompence has collateral seems to me taking one step forward and two steps back.
I really liked your response, and am curious to know if you'd be able to comment more specifically on that little bit I quoted above.
What exactly is the playing field? Getting VC funding? Managing regulatory agencies' demands?
Who has an advantage on the playing field? Who doesn't?