[jonnathanson]

"I think what is important is the LACK of critical articles out there. Where was the counterpoint in this article, or the recent Fortune article."

This is a very good point. My guess would be that we're seeing -- in this article, and in the Fortune profile linked on HN a few months ago -- the results of an incredibly well orchestrated and tightly controlled PR strategy. Say what you will about Elizabeth Holmes, but she is no dummy. She knows exactly what she is doing. The comparisons to Steve Jobs that seem to pop up in all of these articles are no accident. They feel intentionally cultivated, and perhaps to some degree, they're warranted. [1] Jobs also had a knack for image-making, be it in the tight control he exercised over the flow of information inside and outside his company, and in the image he ensured that the media portray.

Does the emperor wear no clothes here? I have no idea. I know next to nothing about the inner workings of the company, or about the medtech world (though I do find it fascinating). I do know that marketing matters a great deal, and traditional biotech and medtech companies don't seem to care too much about consumer image. They rely on time-tested sales channels and retail strategies. Theranos is different in the respect that it's running an Apple-esque marketing and PR playbook in an industry that traditionally does not.

"what these people are doing for lab testing, in terms of technology, sounds totally revolutionary IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CLINICAL LABS."

Yes, and I think Theranos/Holmes are well aware of that fact. If anything, they see it as an opportunity to seize a beachhead in consumer consciousness. The thinking process seems to be: most consumers know virtually nothing about how this all works, ergo, we can appear as gods before them. That is a speculative and perhaps cynical read, but at the same time, I admire their savvy. I admire it a great deal.

[1] Preemptive note: I am saying "to some" degree here. :) I'm not saying she is Steve Jobs, or that the comparison need extend any further, to any other dimensions, than in the specific area I'm talking about in this case. But I think you can make the case that someone who always appears in black turtlenecks, and has a way of invoking the name "Steve Jobs" in almost every major article about her, is intentionally aiming for the comparison. Which is exactly what Steve Jobs himself would have done, in a manner of speaking. (Cf., his intentional evocations of Edison, Ford, Picasso, etc.)

[nilkn]

> The comparisons to Steve Jobs that seem to pop up in all of these articles are no accident.

She's literally dressing like him for her self-promotional photos, in a way that was specifically mocked in HBO's "Silicon Valley" series recently.

[jonnathanson]

Yes, hence my point about how the comparisons feel "intentionally cultivated." She may be going a little too far in that direction, and I'd agree that the black turtlenecks are a little too on-the-nose. Anyone who's ever worn a black turtleneck knows they're not the most comfortable garments in the world, least of all in Palo Alto in the summer. If you're always posing in black turtlenecks, you're doing it for a reason. :)

[specialp]

Image does not mean anything when you are entering a business that is already super competitive, and is amongst the most highly regulated industries. Suppose they actually do get direct to patient testing going, what is to stop Quest/LabCorp for doing the same thing for cheaper? They have massive volume and price advantages.

[jonnathanson]

"Image does not mean anything when you are entering a business that is already super competitive, and is amongst the most highly regulated industries."

I'd say it matters a great deal. Theranos has assembled a board with very strong ties to the government and, presumably, with an eye toward overcoming -- prophylactically or reactively -- any regulatory challenges that may arise. So, with the regulatory "defensive line" in place, so to speak, Theranos is free to focus on image, consumer marketing, and a steadily growing media blitz.

I would presume that its strategies right now include business development and channel alliances. As such, growing its mindshare and establishing itself as a breakthrough company -- and courting emotional comparisons to Apple -- will help with those goals. They will help by establishing awareness among partners, and indirectly, they'll help by fueling consumer demand. That's a time-tested channel marketing strategy. Companies as diverse as Apple, Nike, and Procter & Gamble are very good at running that playbook. Theranos is in a very differently industry, with a very different rulebook, and very different competitors. And it remains to be seen to what degree these efforts will matter. But they're not wasted efforts.