What's the point of posting this article, exactly? Theranos was a scam. The article could have made a poignant point about the poor quality of tech journalism, hailing someone as a savior all the...
What's the point of posting this article, exactly? Theranos was a scam. The article could have made a poignant point about the poor quality of tech journalism, hailing someone as a savior all the way until an actual investigative journalist does the job of exposing the scam. But it didn't, really. Instead it pretends that the scam is just a small hiccup made up by the need for a media "narrative", and predicts that the company, which would go bust a couple of years later, will only come back stronger. No surprise it's written by a startup bro.
Theranos wasn't crucified in the press because startups are now regarded as the elite, which needs to be taken down a peg. The tech press continues to praise startups. It was crucified because it sold a product which didn't exist by pushing outright lies. The shitty thing isn't that the press turned on Elizabeth Holmes, it's that they bought into her scam in the first place.
I think it's a little interesting, at least anecdotally, as a glimpse into the mind of an insider in the "startup" culture at the time and an instance where their predictions turned out very...
What's the point of posting this article, exactly?
I think it's a little interesting, at least anecdotally, as a glimpse into the mind of an insider in the "startup" culture at the time and an instance where their predictions turned out very wrong. It would be more interesting to look at a sample of other contemporary opinion pieces from similar insiders to see if this view was pervasive or not. On its own, I agree, though, that this isn't necessarily all that interesting.
The article is a time capsule of the disruption movement. I wasn't aware of this author, I clicked through to their twitter feed -- it's what you'd expect. The disruption movement is just fine and...
The article is a time capsule of the disruption movement. I wasn't aware of this author, I clicked through to their twitter feed -- it's what you'd expect. The disruption movement is just fine and that's a stark contrast to the recent conviction of the CEO. That's an interesting contrast to me.
What's the point of posting this article, exactly? Theranos was a scam. The article could have made a poignant point about the poor quality of tech journalism, hailing someone as a savior all the way until an actual investigative journalist does the job of exposing the scam. But it didn't, really. Instead it pretends that the scam is just a small hiccup made up by the need for a media "narrative", and predicts that the company, which would go bust a couple of years later, will only come back stronger. No surprise it's written by a startup bro.
Theranos wasn't crucified in the press because startups are now regarded as the elite, which needs to be taken down a peg. The tech press continues to praise startups. It was crucified because it sold a product which didn't exist by pushing outright lies. The shitty thing isn't that the press turned on Elizabeth Holmes, it's that they bought into her scam in the first place.
I think it's a little interesting, at least anecdotally, as a glimpse into the mind of an insider in the "startup" culture at the time and an instance where their predictions turned out very wrong. It would be more interesting to look at a sample of other contemporary opinion pieces from similar insiders to see if this view was pervasive or not. On its own, I agree, though, that this isn't necessarily all that interesting.
The article is a time capsule of the disruption movement. I wasn't aware of this author, I clicked through to their twitter feed -- it's what you'd expect. The disruption movement is just fine and that's a stark contrast to the recent conviction of the CEO. That's an interesting contrast to me.