illini123

No, you shouldn't teach, but Apple doesn't necessarily sound like the right fit either. The issue with larger companies is mainly using the interview as an efficient screening mechanism, but it's always going to miss talent, such as interviewees in your situation. Have you thought about possibly a smaller / company? If technology is your passion and you have the skills, I would do everything in your power to show that you can work well with others, but just don't necessarily interview well.

Would love to hear some of your thoughts, especially since engagement tends to be an issue we've seen with patient-facing apps after a period of a few months. We're exploring what levels of engagement tend to work best with patients, especially as the length between provider visits increases. I'll be sending you an email and would love to discuss more / share some of our insights.

I can probably echo some similar thoughts that we heard when we talked with providers. I'm not tashfeens nor do I work for his company, but I run Varsa Health, a data analytics company for behavioral health providers. We "earned" the respect of clinicians to a certain degree by spending a lot of time (months) learning about their workflow before we started even writing code. My co-founder used to work on similar work in a research setting, so user experience was particularly important to us. I noticed you were working on Healthcare.gov - that's a massive undertaking and kudos to you for having the civic duty to help clean up the mess that it was. Would love to chat further about some of our lessons learned and share our experiences.

https://varsahealth.com/

This is great to hear. We're in a similar position, working on a startup for mental health providers. We spent a solid three months focused on user experience above all else and involving clinicians, case managers, and other end-users in the design process. It's a shame that more startups don't seek this from the get-go, especially those wanting to seek some kind of clinical validity.

Fun fact: MUMPS predates C as a programming language. Sad that a company like that continues to do as well as it does, but then again it sells to admins, not doctors.

From one healthcare entrepreneur to another, congrats. It's difficult to clear that hurdle, especially with the two-sided approach of doctors and patients. What's been your biggest challenge with patient adherence / engagement?

We still have a lot of those companies here, the R&D has moved to the coasts though.

Chicago health tech entrepreneur here: I have so much respect for 640 labs and the others a here that are actually solving real problems, rather than trying to be a copycat. Agriculture, healthcare, and manufacturing may not be sexy, but we have those strengths here, and Chicago should be promoting the successes in these areas more frequently.

As the son of a mother who gave up her full-time (and lucrative) career to raise her kids, I applaud you for having the courage to speak out on this. Witnessing how cousins of mine turned out (one parent was CEO of a major international firm, the other an accomplished investor), I will always remain indebted to my parents for making the choices they did.

Both women and men can have it all, but not everything at the same time. Best of luck in your new roles at MongoDB and with your family.

As someone whose done work on "human subjects" during grad school, this is also a fireable offense, even in some deeply protective places like academia, except that this is a private company and can vaguely claim user consent. As for how this would have played out in any other research setting: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2014/06/how-an-irb-could-hav...

I just finished grad school and undergrad right before that (I lumped them together in 4 years; not to brag, this matters for what I'm about to say). I spent most of undergrad tempted by a few nibbles to take a gap semester or year and see what happens. The way I see it (and others on here may disagree with me), you should stay in school unless the golden opportunity comes along. Here's why: you are earning your education at one of the top schools in the world for EECS. You, provided you don't screw up, will have any number of opportunities post-graduation that others won't have, especially when it comes to startups. I graduated in 5 semesters from undergrad because I wanted to 1) go deeper into a technical background (undergrad in information systems / business - yes, I'm from "the dark side") during grad school 2) work for a startup

I chose to go to grad school, and along the way wound up working for a healthcare informatics startup. Great team, I trusted them a lot, even when they had a major product pivot. Last fall, I had to make the choice, wait for a spring offer to join them full time (yes, please and thank you) and reject other fall offers, or "play it safe." I took the handshake agreement and it wound up falling through. Am I pissed? Yes. Am I glad it happened? Well, I got a great learning lesson out of it, and am now doing my own startup in data analytics, commercializing a side project I did during grad school.

What I'm trying to get at is that yes, you will always regret the "what ifs?" However, be rational about the team, the product, and the vision, and the opportunity cost of putting your education on hold. Yes, you can always go back, but I've had friends do it, and it is hard(er). I'm happy to talk more about this or follow-up, since I know from semi-first-hand experience a bit of what you're going through. You have a lot of options on the table, but just look long-term and be true to yourself, more than anything else.

One can hope, and I would sincerely like to think that new markets within manufacturing or other "old" industries are going to emerge. Off-shoring isn't the cheap solution it once was. Then again, I tend to be very critical of the belief that other industries have "shortages": http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-i...

I'm curious to see if this only grows worse given the continued automation of industries like manufacturing that have traditionally been the backbone of the American middle class during the 20th century. Not so much that jobs won't be there, but they will require more advanced skills and less employees, thanks to "software eating the world."

Building the case for raising the minimum wage is an interesting one to be viewed objectively (not that it ever is), but I think it's also too early to tell with Seattle what the long-term outcomes are.

First things first, get an advisor. You need someone whose been down this road before to mentor you. Not to downplay your intelligence, but as I decided to launch a company this summer, I went through to all the individuals in my network that could at least give me advice when it came to operations, growth, product development, etc. Although it happens less, there are times where startups fail because they balloon too fast.

Based out of LA: https://www.techcoastangels.com/

http://www.maverickangels.com/

https://angel.co/los-angeles/investors

Also, you may want to check here: http://thefunded.com/

This offers reviews of investors / investment syndicates. I can't speak to its accuracy, but it will at least provide some context.

Good luck.

Have you raised a family and friends round? What amount of capital are you looking for? If you just launched 3 months ago, I'd say seed level, but I don't have enough specifics on what you need / burn rate to judge.

Depending on where you're based, I would look at getting in touch with some of the angel investing syndicates. Also, be realistic about the runway you're giving yourselves. My personal philosophy is to meet with investors in my network right at launch (not for money, but to alert them that I might be coming to them at some point). These relationships take time, and even an angel investment can take a month or more for due diligence. Expect Series A to take months longer.

Given that you're not currently in touch with angels, I would start identifying 1-2 groups in wherever you're based (I hope the answer is a larger metro area). Find out if you have a mutual contact. If not, and I hesitate to say this, but make a cold call to the angel / angel group. You don't have anything to lose.

> Let your heart break. It will change what you do with your optimism.

As a fellow health-tech entrepreneur, it's refreshing to see the business press reporting on something more than just "Yo." I hope this kind of publicity continues. The industry needs it.

I'd be happy to talk more about that; right now, though, I've been working on the business model / user research for 4-5 months and just scored a decent partnership with the NIH yesterday (I'm doing behavioral health, where the competition is nascent to non-existent).

I've given myself a timeline to get an MVP and hit certain milestone; given that I've been in the health-tech community for a few years, there are a couple of influential people following the traction.

My problem has been coming from a background where full-stack development was never my thing (undergrad in business, M.S. in Library / Information Science). Sure, I can run some bayesian classifiers on a set of data, but my role in enterprises has always been product management / UX with dabbling in programming on an as-needed basis. Never enough to know the things I don't know.

> not because their looking to solve a problem.

This. I am sick and tired of hearing how nobody can get funding in Chicago. There are two problems: 1) most of their ideas suck, even by startup standards (and I've worked with enough startups to have somewhat of a standard). 2) The VCs want to see next-to-impossible business models / traction. I don't like the frothiness going on in other areas right now, but Chicago takes such little risk it's distburing.

Chicago lacks serial entrepreneurs and a true ecosystem. If you read the "results" section of our report, it goes in-depth. I just posted the thing to the HN homepage. We had to censor it for fear of political push-back (it was a very real risk from some very powerful people). I'm happy to share more in person.

Edit: I'm the co-author on this, and am happy to answer questions, since even in the report, we had to censor things for political reasons.

As someone trying to do a startup in the health-tech space, it's disappointing to see the "Me-Too" atmosphere in the Midwest. I wish I could find some technical people who felt the same way.

Sure, feel free to skim:

http://worldbusinesschicago.com/techcluster

Some context: My roommate and I led this during grad school for the City of Chicago and a bunch of VCs / startup community around the Midwest. We looked primarily at ag-tech, health-tech / life sciences, and advanced manufacturing. Then, we looked at the supposed "brain drain" where we educate all these kids here in the Midwest and then they leave for the coasts. The pundits just want to say "We need more STEM! Argh!" Truth: We don't pay employees enough to stay, even with differences in cost-of-living, and the startups here are under-funded, tackle low-level problems, and Chicago is run by a cartel of private equity / consultants-turned-VCs.

I'm trying to launch a startup in Chicago in data analytics, and it's tough. All the startups here that get publicity don't solve any problems. I'm sorry, but Groupon and GrubHub? Seriously? That's the best you can do? I don't know what your thoughts on this are, but I'd actually love to listen to someone else vent if you're in Chicago. Trying to find a co-founder has been rough, since you tell people you're doing something other than digital tech and get a blank stare.

Given the Chicago reference (fellow Chicagoan here), do you view this as a Midwest problem? I feel like a lot of the companies here tend to lowball on salaries / benefits. I did a study on this for the VC / startup communities in the Midwest, and we think we have enough data to back it up.

Apple isn't much better: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UserEx...

I'm curious if they are attempting to make a push for connecting Siberia, or if this is also due to an increasing userbase in Russia as well:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/05/18/russias-...

I'm in health-tech myself and have a bit of background with the terminology process. Is this using CPT codes for the search? If so, you might want to look at improving some of the functionality, since a lot of these are abbreviated, and unless you are a complete wonk like I am, patients may or may not fully understand the abbreviations. Nice job though with the layout.

I think the other thing to keep in mind is that most of our costs have just grown over time since solutions become that much harder with legacy systems. It's much tougher to go and change a hospital's processes when they just bought a $60 million platform that will most likely continue the status quo. Legacy systems on top of legacy systems.

A lot of this stems from the fact that health IT systems aren't interoperable. Take a look at Epic Systems (the leading vendor). They code in MUMPS, which predates C as a language.

I'm exploring a startup in data analytics for behavioral health, and there it's even worse. Unlike blood pressure or cholesterol, everything is based on intuition. It's what Vinod Khosla means when he refers to modern medicine as being like witchcraft.

Interesting perspectives.

To touch on your 3rd point, that is the inherent problem in these industries: the companies are in it for the long-haul. Do they wind up innovating? No. Epic Systems in healthcare is a fabulous example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/zinamoukheiber/2013/05/15/a-chat...

They code in MUMPS. MUMPS predates C. Yes, you heard me right. The healthcare IT platform that is espoused across the industry is based on what should, for all intents and purposes, be a dead language.

I've taken a bit different approach with some of these industries, and I come from the belief that it's going to require a combination of intellectual partners (like universities and research centers) together with startups to make any sort of meaningful difference.

I'm right now in a niche segment of behavioral health. Funny enough, there is a law that was passed right before the ACA ("Obamacare") that mandates that hospitals put electronic medical records into practice, and over time develop "meaningful use." The big guys have been slow to deliver, the insurance companies want to see change, and the hospitals have to do it for fear of penalty. A lot of people saw disaster, but I saw an opportunity. Over the last several months, I've been working to commercialize some of my research coming out of grad school on this. I was fortunate enough to balance theory and application in school, and this definitely left me jaded towards the SnapChats of the world.

As to your 4th point, that doesn't surprise me at all. I'm Chicago-based, and everyone views the Midwest as a rust belt. I co-led a research initiative that looked at startup activity in the Midwest around ag, health-tech, and advanced manufacturing: http://worldbusinesschicago.com/techcluster

Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but I feel bad that more dev guys just aren't aware of what's out there. It frustrates me so, so much. We glorify things in the industry that we just don't need.

Here is Siebel's talk: http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2110

Watch it. He's a horribly boring speaker, but the content spoke to me. It's what convinced me to look for the low-hanging fruit in health-tech. Funny; now that I found a problem that can be addressed (that isn't), and have a defensible business model, bringing on a technical co-founder can be so hard for all the reasons we just named. Ha!

Tl;dr: creating a new startup and having them join when they finish school.

Allow me to clarify:

The relationship has been amicable, as these were peers of mine from grad school (one going all the way back to middle school). Although we began hashing this out together, it became clear that neither could commit full-time until after graduation (for one, that's next spring), for a second, that's 2016.

The agreement that we have worked out has been that they would provide as much technical advice as they could (one being a CS guy, the other being a CS/Stats guy), and would be happy to review code, but beyond that, I would be on my own for the time being. No equity has been dispersed, and they're okay with that. It's simply a matter of slicing the pie.

So, now I'm wearing multiple hats, with a fairly strong business model / product concept, and a decent amount of clinician interest, but the implementation is lacking. And that is where I need help.

You are not alone in your sentiments. I have a theory on this, which is somewhat based on a comment Aaron Levie made about how young entrepreneurs don't want to go after enterprise and focus on consumer-only. I believe that some of the reasons we are seeing the prevalence of "Yo" and all of its ugly siblings include:

1) Computer science as a discipline teaches us about how to write and optimize elegant code, not necessarily apply it; my experience (although I didn't formally study CS) has always been that the schooling does a great job teaching theory and some practice, but tends to lag when it comes to applying it to "grand challenges." "Bootcamps" tend to go for small-scale consumer-oriented stuff, because you can't teach how to solve grand challenges in 9-16 weeks. It just won't happen.

2) Young adults have little working experience in specific industries for long enough to really be able to identify industry "pain points." Aaron Levie and others have argued this is why so many gravitate towards companies like "Yo" or Snapchat as opposed to addressing real-world problems.

3) Sales cycle. I've been a part of a health-tech startup before. The sales cycle is stressful. You spend months with one potential customer and might get nowhere. In consumer, it's a shotgun approach and you just go for as many in your target market as you can. You take no prisoners. When going after grand challenges, the amount of patience required generally doesn't seem to satisfy many investors who look at your burn rate (or the relative success of SnapChat over 18 months) and use those as their metrics.

4) Direct touch to consumer. This is the most "out there" of my points, but I'd argue that consumer-facing companies garner traction sooner because they also can appeal to the masses. The average person has heard of SnapChat. Can you say the same about Palantir (despite a successful track record)? How about Climate Corporation, which did data analytics for agriculture and sold for $1 billion to Monsanto)? These companies target enterprise. They don't have CEOs that are revered like Steve Jobs for inventing products that are "nice to have," not "need to have."

Tom Siebel from Siebel Systems came and spoke several years ago at my school (I went to the University of Illinois, where he was an alum). He talked about why he doesn't invest anymore in tech for the sake of technology. Instead, he postulates that the industry can and should be going after grand challenges in healthcare, water, energy, and food, arguably the most critical problems of the 21st century.

I've been working as the "business-oriented guy" on a startup concept for the last several months in data analytics for healthcare. I've found a niche within a healthcare subset that is lacking, and the competition is nascent at best. I was fortunate enough to spend a great deal of my time in health-tech during college and grad school, so I was able to actually go in and talk with industry leaders and get a grasp on how "bad" things were. I just finished venting about some similar frustrations on HN from the standpoint of expanding our team. If you're looking for a concept and business model that has 1) been vetted by prospective customers, and 2) actually addresses a real need in healthcare and isn't just an app, let me know. I'd love to talk more about it. I'm trying to find people to join me that want to do more for society than build disappearing messages.