[codezero]

Nope. It's definitely what's going on here. Sorry I'm not very good at enunciating that. It sounds like Theranos is providing a really useful service but there are a lot of hurdles and they are either not doing anything new, or they are and it's not better than what already exists, but it is hard for a casual observer which is all I am to know which it is.

[Dr_tldr]

Yeah, I just re-read your original post and realized you're probably not a native speaker of english (or were writing in a hurry on a phone), my apologies!

Theranos is catching a lot of flak right now because they claim to be a company founded on this awesome new technology, but they seem to be use existing technologies for all the services they currently offer, they won't show people their wonder-device, and the story of the way the company was initially funded and valued keeps getting sketchier.

[codezero]

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.

[Pyxl101]

No, I think that their use of existing technology is exactly the heart of the issue. They claim to have made a breakthrough in how blood tests are conducted that allows them to run a large set of blood tests on a tiny fingerprick blood sample. An investigative journalist then reported that they're not using this technology at all, and all the tests they sell commercially are regular venous blood draws run through testing machines purchased from other companies.

If Theranos is not using their fingerprick blood testing technology, then they are not using their technology commercially at all. So if this is true, then they're a company that's been in business 11 years, has a massive valuation, and has not developed a commercially viable technology yet. It's as if a web search company like Google had been around 11 years, was worth >$1 billion, and then was found to be exclusively using and rebranding Microsoft's search technology instead. It's a scandal.

Theranos' valuation cannot be sustained anywhere near its current value simply by selling blood tests conducted on equipment manufactured by other firms. Theranos' claim to fame is a breakthrough in fingertip-prick blood testing technology, and they have no way to differentiate themselves in the market without this breakthrough technology - their investment value cannot be sustained simply by reselling technology made by other firms.

[mattmanser]

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.

[Dr_tldr]

...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.

[nradov]

The funny thing is that this is exactly what some lean startup advocates would propose as a "concierge MVP" to test the viability of the self-driving car market before spending money on actually developing the technology.

[codezero]

How, and to whom did Theranos over-promise?

[ascorbic]

This is more like if Uber claimed to be using self-driving cars, but actually had a guy sitting in the trunk doing all the driving. Or maybe a chess machine with a person inside it. Sure it works, but it's a little less interesting.

[adevine]

In the beginning, the secret sauce of Uber was still its technology - being able to order a car on your phone, seeing where the nearby drivers are, not having to pull out cash or a credit card at the end. This made the experience much better than ordering a cab.

[codezero]

Yes I get this. I am wondering how Theranos is failing to take advantage of other technologies, despite using existing ones, just like Uber did. What exactly has Theranos failed to deliver?

[adevine]

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.

[codezero]

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.

[codezero]

Writing in a hurry on a phone after a few beers and a hockey game. :)