[stephenhuey]

He said: "Today’s tech behemoths aren’t the lumbering giants of yesteryear. They are leaner and meaner and more competitive precisely because they have co-opted the same technologies startups used to attack them."

But this is far from true with the huge entrenched healthcare tech companies. Many of them haven't even begun to employ the newer software technologies. I'm down the street from the largest medical center in the world and numerous doctors and nurses encourage me all the time with their complaints about the major tech players in the industry. SV has barely scratched the surface of what could be improved and I look forward to seeing many more entrepreneurs join us in this $3 trillion industry.

[onli]

But he is covering that, isn't he?

> Move into new fields that have not (yet) gone through this transition. Tech giants may have adapted (somewhat) to the startup threat, but there are other fields — healthcare, for instance — still trying to adjust to last decade’s technology. These will remain fertile ground for some time yet.

However, we know that this is not an easy field for many reasons (regulations, importance, no mistakes allowed, …). There is a reason why this field seems that stale.

[stephenhuey]

Yes, I think that's exactly right. Perhaps a combination of regulations while a lot of other industries have also enjoyed the spotlight more in the past decade or two. Hence healthcare hasn't attracted as much software talent. A few days ago I got into a Twitter exchange with my insurance company explaining to them why they should secure their login form, not just their registration form. Hopefully the social media rep will actually pass along the recommendation to IT as promised but even with stringent HIPAA regulations it's clear the industry hasn't been able to hire as many competent people as you'd expect for such a vital industry.

[amelius]

The problem with the medical and biological fields is: you generally need expensive equipment. Also, you will need expensive certification.

This is something that wasn't the case for software, so I guess this is also why this goldrush was so much different than anything else we've seen before.

[ASinclair]

A similar problem is where the medical and software industries butt heads. The Software industry likes to take risks and move quickly. It embraces failure. Medicine avoids risk and moves methodically because of that pesky Hippocratic Oath. Failure is often a life and death situation.

My father is a physician. So we've had lots of conversations about this problem. I also here all of his complaints about software. Especially EMR (Electronic Medical Record) systems.

[amelius]

I have a friend whose family doctor developed his own Electronic Medical Record system :)

[stephenhuey]

Good point, but my medical friends' complaints tend to be about the software they have to use more than anything else. And on top of that there's a lack of software tools for a lot of things they do.

[amelius]

There is lots of good bioinformatics software. The problem is often that institutions don't want to pay for it, because open-source software is available with similar functionality (albeit with lacking user interfaces).

In my experience, it is very difficult to make money with scientific software in general, so I'm certainly not expecting a "goldrush" here.

[stephenhuey]

I agree to some degree (!) but I believe a lot of the software used by medical personnel in their daily routines could use an overhaul, plus numerous other modern tools could be given to them for daily use.

[stan_rogers]

HIPAA (among other things) makes it Not Fun™ to be in that space. It's not that it isn't ripe—almost overripe—for an overhaul, but that the bureaucratic requirements tend to attract, well, bureaucratic types and reject people of a more "disruptive" nature. There's no particular reason why software and systems that can pass audits can't be as pleasant to use as any; it's just a matter of assembling a team of people that is creative, has both an aesthetic and ergonomic sensibility, and doesn't mind the kind of working environment that the process (and the auditors' interpretation of regulations; it doesn't matter what's actually required if nobody will certify that you've met the requirements) demands.

[dbcooper]

Check out Genomeweb - bioinformatics startups are being acquired all the time.

[username223]

> But this is far from true with the huge entrenched healthcare tech companies.

The current SV business model is "hoover up personal information people don't completely realize they're providing you, then use it to sell them marginally-more-effective ads." That works for "social" websites and taxi companies that aren't taxi companies, but I doubt it will fly for health care.