Thanks for leaving the post up and for responding here. I’m curious if and how your approach to writing has changed since you wrote the piece. What strikes me about the piece is the certainty and lack of caveats in it, especially given it’s about an area in which I assume you don’t have any particular expertise (blood testing — please correct me if I’m mistaken).
One takeaway from the Theranos saga for me was that the type of fraud perpetrated by Elizabeth Holmes can have very real consequences on people’s lives beyond some rich investors losing their money. The stories about people receiving incorrect test results, the irresponsibility with which Theranos ran their lab, not to mention Holmes using David Boies to attack the brave whistleblowers in my mind go far beyond the “fake it till you make it” / “mistakes were made” framing of the case.
If I had played a role in supporting that type of behavior, however small, I would probably have a different takeaway than “got this specific example wrong! but my core point was correct”.
I have heard that Vungle is doing well financially, so I'd say that's success.
I don't know about Shyp tho, but they have a lot of buzz and an innovative product, which in my mind is a success...although they still have a LONG way to go to prove themselves. So I get your point. I don't think funding is defines success, but more so a strong sign that your on your way making something work. And I totally agree...funding in itself isn't something you should brag about.
However, the # of jobs Jack helped create IMHO is 100% a success. It's super rewarding and changes lives (most of the time) in a great way.
I had a strong opinion. My prediction was wrong!
But I left the article up because I have a lot of opinions and hey, I’m wrong sometimes…no shame!
Also I think I was like 24 when I wrote that and I love seeing how my write has evolved.
For the record, I stand by the sentiment, which is the media vilify startup founders.
But my chosen example was very, very bad.