[roymurdock]

Theranos is a counterexample. Probably would have been outed as fraudulent if they tried to enter a more safety-critical space (ventilators, pumps, injectors, etc.), but still a bad sign for medical diagnostic industry that it got so much funding and so far along, inking huge deals before collapsing. Perhaps some good will come if it makes others in the space more cautious in the short run

Next industry to keep an eye on (many are already) is automotive. There are a lot of vendors trying to put a lot of software/connectivity into the next generation of cars. Lots of regulation but I will opt for a dumb car over new smart stuff any day.

Same with a lot of different traditionally embedded systems that are now being connected to the internet

[nimish]

No, Theranos started to fail as soon as anyone with real medical expertise without a stake in the company started to probe it.

Theranos was extremely successful at fleecing VCs and embarrassing political board members.

It's a good thing that it got so far, because it proves just how bad VCs are at evaluating successful companies and how much of the funding game is who you know.

[abakker]

Arguably, the big deals and optimism indicate that there is a lot of pent up demand for successful things, and people are willing to take some risk to get solutions. It’s not all doom and gloom, solutions just have to work.

[sk5t]

Conversely, I read Theranos's progress as evidence of cynical bets that the government/military could likely be directed into pumping billions of USD into the company regardless of its merit.

[abakker]

You could certainly draw that conclusion from its original board. I did as well. Still, I think the point stands that people want healthcare to work, and will pay for it. It just so happens that it takes a lot of effort to improve the system since what we have is pretty good. (Not to say it doesn’t have problems)