(I don't work there or anything)
(I don't work there or anything)
I think there's also been a lot of independent academic attempts at this (see: http://klavinslab.org/ which is CS/BioE at UWash), but all kind of waded around in the shallow water.
The reason why I think this is compelling because I think almost every synthetic biologist has an existing workflow. It's basically design using some sort of CAD software, order from IDT, receive materials next day, run test by hand, ship to Genewiz for sequencing, etc. That's just one example of a workflow involving 4-5 specialized 'steps'. As the steps get cheaper/faster/better, consolidating and automating this is just a no brainer.
Transcriptic, on the other hand, started taking orders six months ago and has customers at Stanford, Caltech, Harvard, and more.
Definitely having the infrastructure 'warehouse' layer that Transcriptic is building (with a real API! wow!) will be valuable. And like you hint at, power users won't need hand-holding, but 99% of the market of users will. That's where packaging, ease of use, and limited configuration seem to be the difference maker (Heroku starting exclusively with Rails).
However, a service like Transcriptic may make sense if (a) you're in a company (no free undergrad labor, though summer interns may be a suitable alternative) or (b) you don't already have the equipment and just want to do a one-off collection of a large amount of data. Also, maybe prices will significantly drop as Transcriptic scales up and streamlines their operations. I'll definitely be checking back in the coming years to see if they ever reach the point where it makes sense to use their services.
If anyone in this thread thinks this is an interesting topic I'm easy to reach at max@transcriptic.com.
The first two bullet points there are like the two biggest red flags possible in an ops job post. It reads as a development team that has built a fragile and unreliable system and is looking for a superman to dump it on.
It will matter much more if your VP of Engineering position can capacity plan than it will matter if your operations position can code. No amount of ops rockstars can fight a (larger) dev team that won't design with real world workload capacity and reliability as not just a concern but a focus.
Another Transcriptic just Slacked everyone your comment here which has prompted a discussion about what we're really looking for in an "ops" person. The "exceptional coding skills" bullet is in almost all of our engineering job posting, and we thought such skills would apply to really good "devops" people, too; maybe this is wrong and asking for the wrong skill set. (The SREs I know at Google are all really good developers.)
Being an "on-call position" is a side effect of our volume and the fact that cells don't stop dividing at 8pm. Depending on when projects get started we often end up running reactions all the time, and so yes there is a (metaphorical) pager involved. Even minor failures here are very time sensitive due to the biological nature, and lost samples can be extremely costly (and devastating to our reputation with customers). I think this ops role is more about setting up the processes rather than being the only person (people) to respond to issues.
We'll be reflecting on that job description and update the posting.