[HN Gopher] I wasted $40k on a fantastic startup idea ___________________________________________________________________ I wasted $40k on a fantastic startup idea Author : swyx Score : 197 points Date : 2021-01-18 20:01 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (tjcx.me) (TXT) w3m dump (tjcx.me) | eightysixfour wrote: | I remember reading this the last time and it was posted and I | still think the core failure is that the author didn't actually | recognize the issue he was solving. He thought the problem was | choosing the most effective medicine when the real problem was | decision fatigue looking at endless shelves of things that all | seem to do the same thing. Those two problems sort of look the | same, but the latter cannot be resolved by selling the tool to | doctors in their offices. | | The tool should have been designed (IMO) as a consumer tool, | either a kiosk at CVS/Walgreens/pharmacies to assist with OTC med | selection or possibly as a website with ads/referrals. I would | absolutely choose a pharmacy over another as a result of them | having something to help through that process, especially when I | have a headache. | ihumanable wrote: | I'm grateful for this comment because it put into words the | thing I couldn't. | | I'm reading the epiphany part of this post, to quote: | | You have a mind-shattering headache. You're standing in the | aisle of your local CVS, massaging your temples while scanning | the shelves for something--anything--to make make the pain | stop. | | What do you reach for? Tylenol? Advil? Aleve? | | Most people, I imagine, grab whatever's cheapest, or closest, | or whatever they always use. But if you're scrupulous enough to | ask Google for the best painkiller, here's how your friendly | neighborhood tech behemoth would answer: | | [Screenshot of Google Search Results] | | Oh thanks Google that's just all of them. | | ---end quote--- | | The author immediately identifies that this isn't a real | problem, by their own admissions that "Most people, I imagine, | grab whatever's cheapest, or closest, or whatever they always | use." Yea, most people when they have a headache and know that | most painkillers on the market will result in about the same | degree of relief, don't bother to cross reference a medical | meta-analysis, because they have a headache and if the $0.01 | worth of aspirin doesn't make it feel better they will just | take a second pill and eat the penny. | | I like the author's conclusion about how to quickly validate | business ideas, but even in the title the author still holds | firm to the belief that this was a "fantastic startup idea" | even though reality seems to think otherwise. Was this such a | great idea, do most consumers actually want to review a meta- | analysis when picking their OTC medicine, or do most people | just try a few things, get influenced by advertising, and | purchase the most reasonably priced medicine they think will | help. I am just a single data point, but I don't normally feel | naked and unscrupulous when I just read the symptoms that a | medicine treats and pick one, and that strategy generally works | just fine. | | Solution in search of a problem and also in search of humans | that act in this weird atypical fashion. | PeterisP wrote: | Waiit - "You have a mind-shattering headache. [..] What do | you reach for? " - isn't this where you're supposed or even | required to ask the pharmacist? You know, the person who has | the years-long training to know drug effects, limitations and | interactions with other drugs? | hartator wrote: | > So in July 2018, nine months and $40K after starting GlacierMD, | I shut it down. [...] The idea is that if you build something | truly awesome [...] Where did I go wrong? | | $40k and 9 months is not that much. Either you gave up just | before you figure out how to make the business work or maybe | GlacierMD wasn't that revolutionary. | | Why not open sourcing and publishing all that work? You can still | recoup some money via ad money even if it's not the millions you | were expecting and at least you have something to show off. | jwogrady wrote: | The author brilliantly makes the case against single payer | healthcare. Bravo. Job well done, sir. | nickjj wrote: | That was a fun read. I wish the author mentioned how much he was | trying to sell the service for. It could have been $59 a month or | $599 a month and with doctors you could potentially expect the | same answer. | | I'm not a psychologist but some of the author's quoted text came | off extremely demeaning in written form. If the author happens to | read this, did you really say those things directly to them? | | For example, Susan (psychologist) was quoted as saying: | | > _" Oh sure! I mean, I think in many cases I'll just prescribe | what I normally do, since I'm comfortable with it. But you know | it's possible that sometimes I'll prescribe something different, | based on your metastudies."_ | | To which you replied: | | > _" And that isn't worth something? Prescribing better | treatments?"_ | | Imagine walking into the office of someone who spent the last ~10 | years at school and then potentially 20 years practicing their | craft as a successful psychologist and then you waltz in and tell | them what they prescribe is wrong and your automated treatment | plan is better. | worldsayshi wrote: | If you are to proud to visit stackoverflow or Google to search | for best practices you're not a very good developer. Sounds | like the same rule should apply to a doctor or psychiatrist. | | Do they have such fragile egos that they can't have someone | showing them the "new Google for doctors" without feeling | offended? | | (Sorry if that came out a bit edgy. But this hole story irks | me. It's frustrating when value can't be delivered because of | cash flow issues.) | Closi wrote: | Doctors do have curated platforms where they can lookup | information, and also have diagnosis tools / checklists in | them. | dikaio wrote: | Agree | ddorian43 wrote: | > Do they have such fragile egos that they can't have someone | showing them the "new Google for doctors" without feeling | offended? | | It's very hard to understand their thinking without being | yourself a patient or doctor. | | TLDR: You need to spend 1K hours as a doctor, or shadowing, | or something similar. | | When you are responsible for people with psychosis your | perspective changes. Can't play nosql games with people's | lives. | Falling3 wrote: | > you waltz in and tell them what they prescribe is wrong and | your automated treatment plan is better. | | That doesn't really capture the conversation though. Susan | specifically said (as you quoted) that it was possible she | would use the recommendations of the app. If she took a | recommendation that means she agreed it was a better treatment. | His question was not whether his algorithm was better than her | default prescriptions - because they both agreed that was the | case at least some of the time - it was whether it was better | enough to be financially worthwhile. | yunohn wrote: | You'd be surprised how many doctors neglect the state of the | art in medicine... That's also why second opinions are a thing. | Medicine is a science and hence, an ever changing field. | chefandy wrote: | I probably would be surprised if that's true considering that | in most states in the US, doctors are required to complete | between 20 and 50 hours of structured CME (continued medical | education) annually as a prerequisite to relicensure, and | every one I've spoken to took it pretty seriously. | stevewodil wrote: | It's actually a very good sales question, I don't find it | demeaning at all. | | If you're on a sales call selling a product that increases user | retention and someone says "no we don't need that", you would | often reply with "So you have perfect user retention then?" to | probe them and re-open the conversation. | | It could come off as standoffish but when used correctly it's | very effective because it gets the person on the other end to | open up more and you try to get to the bottom of their | objections. | na85 wrote: | >If you're on a sales call selling a product that increases | user retention and someone says "no we don't need that", you | would often reply with "So you have perfect user retention | then?" to probe them and re-open the conversation. | | Assuming that I didn't initiate the call, if I tell some | sales punk that I don't need their product and they come back | at me with "So you have perfect user retention then?" my | answer is going to be "fuck you" followed by ending the call. | | Arrogance might work in used car sales but it's not a panacea | for closing the deal. | stevewodil wrote: | I'm sure that happens occasionally as well. | | I get it, sales people can be annoying but it really only | hurts your business (in this hypothetical case) if you have | a user retention problems and are actively fighting against | people trying to help you solve that problem with a | mutually beneficial business agreement. | | They will call the next person on their list, I'm sure it | won't matter much. | matkoniecz wrote: | Incoming spam is unwelcome in general, and I would not | assume that this people are trying to help me. | na85 wrote: | >I get it, sales people can be annoying but it really | only hurts your business (in this hypothetical case) if | you have a user retention problems and are actively | fighting against people trying to help you solve that | problem with a mutually beneficial business agreement. | | Oh please. Not every product that's applicable to a given | business would necessarily be beneficial to that | business. | | I get it, sales people have to drink the kool aid, but | some humility is needed. Your product isn't right for | everyone, and the sooner you understand that the sooner | you can improve the quality of your lead generation. | robocat wrote: | HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible | interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one | that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.". | | I would presume that sentence is a quickly typed | paraphrase. If you presume they are a competent | salesperson, you can also presume that they say it less | antagonistically in real life. Edit: Or perhaps they have | found that antagonism is the most profitable solution for | the business to turn around a "no" answer. | na85 wrote: | >HN guidelines | | The comment to which I'm responding explicitly argues | that the phrase, verbatim, is a good sales tactic. | jrochkind1 wrote: | I was ready to agree with you because question in the OP | wasn't so bad, but "So you have perfect user retention then?" | -- seriously? Yeah, that's being demeaning. Maybe being | demeaning is a good sales technique, I dunno, but that's | definitely being a jerk. | | But "Are you sure increasing your user retention isn't worth | something to you?" or something like that maybe. | stevewodil wrote: | It really depends on your tonality when you say it. In | either case, saying "Are you sure increasing your user | retention isn't worth something to you?" is just going to | be met with another "No, we don't need it" from the other | end. | | "So you have perfect user retention then?" is a better | question because you know for a fact that they can't have | 100% user retention and they know that as well so it forces | further dialogue. | dan-robertson wrote: | The conversations are surely paraphrased and exaggerated--just | look at the style of the rest of the article. | | The position that doctors should be trying new things to | improve their care sounds good but in practice most doctors are | strongly biased towards the status quo and usually inaction is | preferred to a slightly unknown action, even if that action has | better expectancy. | ketzo wrote: | I dunno. I think tech people have a tendency to assume they | know for certain that they have a better solution, and their | words/tone can reflect that in a way that can come off as | very insulting to people who have been working in the space | for literal decades. | | Not everyone, and not all the time. But many people, and | often enough that it's a stereotype. So I think it's worth | considering, particularly when you're looking at a customer | base who (by and large) _really_ aren 't used to being | condescended to. | | Even if you and I personally aren't offended in the slightest | by what OP said on sales calls, it's possible a psychologist | in the fourth decade of her career might take "Are you sure | that's right?" differently than we would. | xivzgrev wrote: | I don't think that was the point. The point was better | healthcare doesn't necessarily translate to more revenue. | Healthcare is weird like that - you get paid a flat fee for | visits. There might be an argument to be made that better | prescriptions = happier patients = more retention, but it's a | stretch. If your practice is already booked full what's the | point? | | This biz was clearly made for consumers but yea ads are tough | - need a lot of eyeballs. | dan-robertson wrote: | Yeah I agree that's the point of the article. I think what | I wrote would still be a reason even if it is rationalised | differently. | | The argument that "patients won't know the difference so I | can just do whatever" must break down at some point | (hopefully before malpractice) but I think an argument of | "I'll just keep doing what I did before, it's worked fine | so far" doesn't encourage worsening treatment or paying for | more experimentation. | loceng wrote: | Psychiatrists are simply experimenting on each person they | prescribe medications to. The status quo is indoctrination, | and in this case, the psychiatrist wasn't even willing to use | actual research based data to improve the treatment of their | patients - even referencing that they won't make anymore | money because the patient won't come back more often or refer | more patients because of it. This is abhorrent unprofessional | behaviour - but it's likely the attitude of 90%+ of the | field. | renewiltord wrote: | Based on the response he got, it was the right question, | actually. People aren't Internet-style insecure in real-life, | especially those who have high social cred (like doctors). Even | accounting for the humorous exaggeration, the kind of question | asked from a professional doctor is less likely to cause them | to be offended and more likely for them to just tell you why | not. They're not going to be "How dare you question my decades | of experience?!". They'll answer like they did in the OP. | | In _The Mom Test_ , he suggests getting right to the core of a | customer's pain points. This is just corollary to that. | arghwhat wrote: | Although do note that doctors are just humans, with all the | same flaws. There's just a bias in the kinds of humans that | tend obtain the title. | brd wrote: | Amusingly enough, I've got a document that's essentially a list | of ideas where the business model is spurious at best and on that | list is a solution almost identical to what was built here. | | I appreciate that someone took the dive and then shared the | process, pain and failure of seeing it through to its conclusion. | The only thing missing is the attempt to raise VC money to scale | it to some sort of expert system you can sell to enterprise | customers. | worldsayshi wrote: | Turning the product described in the article into an enterprise | product sounds like nonsense to me. The product should arrive | to the user that benefits the most. Isn't that people in | general? | dkarl wrote: | I'm kind of concerned that people read this as satire but miss | the most important part, namely the absence of concern about the | safety and validity of the results. You know, the part where he | stuck some statistical software in front of a database populated | by a "motley crew" of contractors and wanted doctors to use it as | a shortcut for making patient care decisions. The part where he | implicitly compares the HTML spit out by his system to peer- | reviewed work by professional researchers. The part where he is | proud of "beating" a "record" for least discriminating meta- | analysis. | | Reading this story and talking about his marketing and product | development process feels like watching Lovecraft Country and | then then only talking about the time travel physics of it. | There's something real and awful here, hopefully presented in a | fictionalized or highly exaggerated form. The people in my social | circles who mistrust tech and despise startup culture -- this is | exactly how they see us. | [deleted] | [deleted] | analyte123 wrote: | It sounds like GlacierMD not only presented results from meta- | analyses, they made a platform to make them easier to do and _did | their own_ but didn 't publish them. If you built a platform to | make doing meta-analysis easier, you could collaborate with | medical researchers and institutions who are publishing meta- | analyses. Maybe give it to them for free at first, maybe get an | author credit, some PR, and more sales leads. Researchers can | probably use grant money to buy access to your platform and still | save money on paying analysts to do things manually. | aetherspawn wrote: | Perhaps this would have been a great business model to start | astroturfing big pharma by focusing on SEO, allowing users to | upvote meds that worked well for them and letting big pharma pay | to bump theirs to the top or highlight it or something like that. | Or for a given class of med, charge big pharma or individual | chemists a certain amount for referral back links. | | As a consumer your flow is probably naturally: what type? which | brand? where is cheapest in my area? | | There are plenty of energy comparison companies making money that | way. They have a lot less tangible data. | | I'll be honest - the tech is so cool you nearly made me want to | reach out and buy where you got upto. | ircoder wrote: | Oh man! I'm laughing and crying at the same time. I had a very | similar experience in my first "startup". It hurt me so bad, both | financially and emotionally, that I could do another "startup" | for 7 years. | | Luckily, the next time I came across Steve Blank and YC Startup | School materials and instead of burning all my cash over a two | years I managed to FAIL my next three startups withing few weeks | with a negligible cost. | | Those books and articles saves your life and money! | | This is yet another cautionary tale for founders. | einpoklum wrote: | A few points come to mind: | | 1. Good thing he wasted $40k that he actually had rather than | $400k he might have borrowed. Of course you could argue that "no | risk no reward", but still. | | 2. The idea itself seems to stem from a weird US-consumer-centric | bubble. More specifically * "Pain killers"? Those | medications have different active ingredients with different | effects, only part of which is some kind of pain (and not a | single kind). Some are anti-inflammatory, some are analegsic etc. | Those are really different things. * Different | people have different reactions to medication, even within the | same group of active ingredients. One is better served by | choosing medication based on past experience is similar | situations. * If it's not clear what you should be | taking, you probably want to have a doctor examine the entirety | of your symptoms and make recommendations. * If some | kind of medication is consistently superior to another for almost | all people and scenarios, the superior one will likely drown out | the inferior one in terms of availability and public awareness. | The popularity of multiple kinds of medication usually (?) | indicates they are preferable in different scenarios. | | 3. When I first saw what the novelty was supposed to be, I was | unimpressed. I mean, ok, it's not trivial to do statistical | analysis in R - but it seems like anyone with some R and | statistics experience can do it. It doesn't seem like there's a | lot of secret sauce. There might still be commercial viability | here, but it's at best risky. | | 4. What was the initial business plan? Revenue model? Who was | supposed to pay for what? Specifically, suppose one person paid | for a recommendation for pain medication. Ok, so they got it - | but it's not going to be a secret. It's now public. | xmly wrote: | So long... | llaolleh wrote: | I love the author's writing style. I found it kind of funny. But | there's a lot he could've done better. | | My top recommendation would've been to find someone in medicine | as a co-founder. This could've helped him find flaws in the | economic model faster. I still think his project has amazing | potential, except that it's going to have to go through a couple | of iterations. For example - what if he somehow integrated this | information to make it so that it's easier to connect customers | to future doctors and take a affiliate fee? | | Also imagine if we had a better medical search engine. There's so | much information in medicine that is still blocked off to | consumers. The author mentions that consumers do not want to go | through the details - maybe we can make something that can dumb | it down for people and put a directory of doctors who can help | explain further? | capiki wrote: | The author has a great sense of humor. This was really fun to | read:) | offtop5 wrote: | I loved reading this, but it doesn't seem like he thought this | through all the way. For one you'd want to figure out how you | plan to monetize anything you expect an roi on before you start | spending all of your money. Two giving out medical advice feels | like a giant cluster of potential headaches, and liability. A | doctor who trust your website and then maybe one of her patients | has a bad reaction, may have grounds to sue you particularly if | you charge a fee to use the product. | madamelic wrote: | The current ideology of needing to go big fast kills a lot of | decent ideas. | | Everyone thinks there are two modes for a service: dead or worth | $1B+. | | Not to like bash you while you are down but you may have been | able to do this while working and not spending $40k on | contractors. | | Not everyone needs to raise $10M, get a flashy office, employ 200 | people and have all of the trappings of a "successful" startup | founder; if anything, that's antithetical to what you should be | doing. | | No MVP, no testing their model, just straight to "Next Best | Thing". It definitely hurts, I've been there too for my first | "next big thing" and I doubt you'll be the last to get burnt by | the image VC firms sell. | chadash wrote: | $40K is not much to put into a business. You'd likely be | putting down more than that just to open a convenience store. | | Sure you need to spend a lot of money to grow a $1B+ business, | but the same is true for a $100M business or a $10M business | and even most $1M businesses. | madamelic wrote: | $40k is a lot to put in a business you have no idea if it can | make money or whether it is needed. | | It's a definite that people have to eat. I would assume most | failures in restaurants and convenience stores are | operations, not a critically flawed business model. | | --- | | But yes, I guess $40k is less than $2M, but it also takes | $40k away from another venture and possibly having to go back | to a day job to take another run at something. | | All because you didn't validate the problem before cutting | off your income source. | heavenlyblue wrote: | You would not need to put up a lot of money if you just came | to a market to sell some vegetables. For less central areas | you could potentially sell stuff for free. Convenience store | is a bad example as these are heavily standardised by now: we | all expect a high diversity of products and thus the | equipment needed to store it | boffinism wrote: | For an article written in October of last year it sure is funny | that there's an HN discussion about it from last January... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21947551 | eecks wrote: | Well written - that was an entertaining read. | amadeuspagel wrote: | Why not try to fund it by selling pharmacies, or with some kind | of affiliate program? | sneak wrote: | I think that people are probably misleading themselves if they | say they want it, but aren't willing to pay for it. | | People fork over money for IAPs by the millions per minute, | because they want the results. | | I think if it were truly that desirable, people would have been | happy to pay for it. I just don't think it provided that much | value to the customer. | notahacker wrote: | Mostly they're being polite (and showing they understand | perfectly well how they _could_ use it, so no need to explain | its purpose any further thanks). They 're not really misleading | _themselves_... | | Ultimately the author's problem is that he was showing Susan a | clever project that looked much more attractive than notes | she'd usually consult rather than asking her how many times a | year she wasn't sure what to prescribe and how difficult it | actually was for her to get a sound recommendation from a | source she trusted. | | Even if he was trying to demo a finished product rather than | figuring out if it should exist, asking those questions would | still have been more likely to put her in the frame of mind | where she asks about or spots the _really difficult to | ascertain info that has professional liability repercussions_ | rather than just liking the UI and being impressed that this | programmer is citing the Hamilton Rating Scale for depression) | jokethrowaway wrote: | This was a great read! | | Doctors definitely don't need your product, as they pointed out. | | But consumers do! | | I think you should have sold to consumers. | | Having three doctors in my close family, I often found that | whatever the tired doctor at the hospital is recommending is in | contrast with what a doctor who care about my health (and is | willing to look on their proprietary platforms) is recommending. | That's why you ask different private doctors' opinions when | things matter. | | I found myself googling studies on what's the better treatment | for $x and I would pay for better-than-a-doctor-advice backed by | actual studies. | | I think the problem, in your situation, is the scale of the | operation. | | If you want to do B2C, you often need investments and you can | expect to become profitable in a few years. | | Either find some funding or fix your cashflow. | hathawsh wrote: | That was my reaction too. It seems like GlacierMD might have | been successful if it had focused on SEO. Whenever someone | types "what is the best headache medicine", GlacierMD should | have been at the top of the results. The landing page would | show the results of the studies for free, but would also let | the user sign up so they can enter allergy and preference info | and customize the results to them. Nearby doctors would | advertise on the site. | | So, in essence, before spending any money, I would go out and | interview doctors to see if they're willing to pay for a | channel of new customers. I would also try to gauge how many | customers would be willing to sign up and enter their info so | local doctors could advertise to them. And, of course, I would | check with a lawyer to ensure I'm not bumping into HIPAA. | diebeforei485 wrote: | Before spending all that cash or even incorporating, he should | have pitched his idea to VC in the health space. | fourseventy wrote: | This is the classic case of building a product that you hope will | solve a problem instead of finding a problem first then building | a product to solve it. The correct approach would have been to | have those conversations with doctors before spending $40k to | build the product. | | I've made this very mistake myself but I was lucky enough to have | enough runway to start over and talk to customers first then | pivot the product to something that they actually need. | | I call this the "I have an idea for a startup!" issue. You hear | it all the time from family/friends. Where they tell you this | great idea for a product they had. This is the wrong approach. | What you want to say is something like "There is this really | interesting problem that everyone in ecommerce is facing right | now" | ummonk wrote: | Uh no. He had a problem - how to choose a medicine - and built | a product to solve that problem. The issue was that solving the | problem isn't something people wish to pay for, not that the | problem doesn't exist. | ignoramous wrote: | In other words, _" solve a frequent, burning problem"_. | | Tom Blomfield worte about how during YC S11 they had trouble | growing at all. He chanced upon a customer who fit their | product's user persona to a tee but at the end of a 20m | conversation Tom realised the it wasn't really a _burning | problem_ for them at all. | | And so they pivoted...to GoCardless. | | https://archive.is/8IDcl | takinola wrote: | To be more accurate, you want to find a problem that people | will pay (money, time, etc) for. He never tried to test that | until it was too late. To be fair, this is a very, very | common failure mode and I can imagine most people reading | this story can identify with it. | dvt wrote: | > Uh no. He had a problem - how to choose a medicine... | | Did he though? He even mentions that customers generally pick | _whatever_ (because they don 't really care what's the | perfectly optimized headache pill they should take) and | doctors thought it was neat, but no one really wanted to pay | for it. Their solution (e.g. prescribing what they would | typically prescribe) was good enough. | | It doesn't really sound like there's a problem there. | dewey wrote: | Solving your own problem and then saying "Oh I found someone | interested in my solution" isn't really what they mean by | finding customers though. | woeirua wrote: | I don't think most doctors or customers would even consider | this to be a real problem. For some specific, rare conditions | sure. But for Tylenol? Come on. No one is going to pay for | that. | skybrian wrote: | To be fair, when he started he didn't know he wanted to talk to | doctors. That was after a pivot. | | Also, $40k is downright cheap compared to most failed projects | to improve medicine. If it were someone else's money, that is. | [deleted] | mbay wrote: | should have made it enterprise software for HMOs - they profit | when their population has better outcomes. Or sell it Epic or | something and they'd package it into their systems. | jonathan-adly wrote: | He needed a co-founder who has experience in health care. As a | Clinical Pharmacist and a developer - this idea would automate | part of my clinical pharmacist job and is viable. He needed to | sell to hospitals and PBMs as a tool to automate formulary | management. | | Selling to those entities are really *really* difficult and there | is no good distribution channel, but doable with an experienced | person who sold them stuff before. | gault8121 wrote: | This article's thesis seems to be that medical professionals are | not incentized to provide the best interventions, and as a | result, wouldn't pay for this service. However, what the author | fails to mention is the competitors in this space that are | successful, such as Up To Date, which provides really high- | quality research trial data: https://www.uptodate.com/home | | Rather than building a product that informs medical professionals | about effective interventions, I wonder if the creator would have | had more success if he deeply explored what sources of | information these medical professionals pay for now - do they pay | for anything at all, such as UpToDate, and don't want to pay this | because it's an additional expense? If the creator found which | sources people are using, the creator could sell this database as | a feature for these partners and widely disseminate this data | through partner channels rather than creating a competing source | of information. It seems to be a case of this being a good | instance of a B2B2C model, where selling this service to other | businesses that sell directly to medical professionals could be | more viable than trying to sell directly to them. | | Alternatively, if the creator wanted to sell to patients, rather | than medical professionals, the blueprint here is all of the | consumer reports companies, such as Wirecutter, which is one of | the New York Times's most popular services. Here, again, a | "Wirecutter for medical interventions" could be quite successful, | and you could sell this service to media companies that provide | consumer reports as a service that would bolster these companies. | | It's bad the creator wasn't able to find traction, as getting | more medical data into the hands of consumers could have a huge | postive impact over time. | dr_ wrote: | A hospital system is incentivized in some ways to get people | discharged as soon as possible and ideally with a good outcome. | A service like UpToDate is one of the tools that may facilitate | that by providing valuable clinical pearls to facilitate | decision making. So it's not surprising that UpToDate is | largely paid for by large institutions and academic medical | centers, and not as much by individual medical providers. | gzer0 wrote: | https://opensourcemed.com | | It's a crudely built version of UpToDate from 2018 as it was on | April 2018. Useful for 98% of the population still. | | Edit: definitely works better on mobile, and the search needs | to be fixed.. this isn't my website but a resource that I've | been passed down/told about by medical students. | repeek wrote: | I don't think he had the correct buyer either. While medical | professionals may be the user, for this type of service you | need to be selling into hospitals or health systems. They have | the incentive for their providers, collectively, to improve the | quality of care. | | I doubt UpToDate makes their bones off individual | subscriptions. The real money to keep a company afloat is from | b2b enterprise contracts. | Closi wrote: | I thought exactly the same when they were talking about | trying to convince doctors to buy it - surely they don't | misunderstand their market that much though? | viraptor wrote: | There are also services in non-us countries like "How to treat" | https://www.ausdoc.com.au/howtotreat Which are relatively | popular and used by doctors. Although it's already edited | rather than raw data. | jarym wrote: | Maybe its just me but I would have approached drug companies to | partner with their marketing teams. THAT would have been | something worth paying for TO THEM. | yaboy wrote: | Never approach marketing teams unless you're Theranos sized | courting Walgreens. | | Corporate marketers hate risk. It's a great way to lose your | cushy job. What I have seen happen is that they embrace | innovation, parade you around their offices and never close on | a deal. | | I saw this happen. The founder of BuyYourFriendADrink was the | doyenne of Diageo's hallways but after burning six months of | runway no revenue producing contract was inked. Some corporate | politicians simply exist to take meetings. | _0o6v wrote: | > Make something people want | | That's a charity. | | > Make something people want __and will pay you for__ | | That's a business. | | You learnt the hard way. | drran wrote: | > Make something people want __and stuff it with ads__ | | That's a business. | PeterisP wrote: | IMHO "Make something people want" implies that people will want | to pay you for it[1]. If people want it, they'll come asking | you to take their money - if their response is "meh, I'd try it | for free" then I'd argue it's misleading to tell that they want | it, the most you could say is that they are interested. | | [1] the other limitation is whether they can afford to pay you | despite wanting it; there are products/markets where the target | audience is eager to pay but their collective budget is too | small for the scale you need. | ohazi wrote: | > There was this giant thing called _healthcare_ right, and its | main purpose is _improving health_ | | My reaction to this was: | | _laughing_ : Oh, how adorably naive. | | followed shortly by: | | _crying_ : Ugh, we're so fucked. | pramsey wrote: | It felt like there was a missing chapter! | | Consumers don't see the value at all. | | Doctors see the value, but won't pay for it, because it doesn't | change their bottom line. | | Whose bottom line _does_ this change then? | | HMOs, insurance companies, organizations that want to improve the | health of a population in aggregate. They'd pay money to have | healthier people (on average) to provide the service to their | docs (who see the value) to use for free. | | Well, maybe; but I was hoping to see that theory validated in the | last turn of the wheel. | adamlangsner wrote: | He quotes Strategic Marketing Management, which is a great book | if a bit academic. Another great quote I always remember from | that book: | | "Marketing is not about selling a product, but about figuring out | what product to sell" | computerlab wrote: | If you want to see an index of meta studies, you can check out | the Cochrane Collaboration: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/ | | It's mentioned in the book Bad Pharma which has a pretty good | breakdown of how drug marketing to consumers and medical | professionals distorts decision making. | loceng wrote: | '"Oh, uh--hmmmm," she said. "I don't know if we can spare the | budget here, to be honest. It's very fun...but I'm not sure if | our practice can justify this cost."' - Susan (psychiatrist) | | It just goes to show you how haphazard and lacking of scientific | method the psychiatrist field is. | | '"And that isn't worth something? Prescribing better treatments?" | | "Hmmmm," she said, picking at her fingernails. "Not directly. Of | course I always have the best interests of my patients in mind, | but, you know, it's not like they'll pay more if I prescribe | Lexapro instead of Zoloft. They won't come back more often or | refer more friends. So I'd sorta just be, like, donating this | money if I paid you for this thing, right?"' - Susan again | | This is an absolutely disgusting response to me. They don't care | because the costs of shitty treatment - medications that fuck a | person up - are externalized, the practitioner/psychiatrist | doesn't have to deal with whatever severe "side" effects the | medications they'll experiment on a person with. | thebradbain wrote: | I would have absolutely used this -- as a consumer tool. I | _would_ even pay a (small) subscription for the service, as I'm | an avid user of WebMD who is more often than not overwhelmed by | potential treatments for any given symptom, but I admit that most | likely would not scale. | | I do, however, think it makes much more sense as a consumer tool | rather than a doctor tool: if I've already gone through the | trouble of making an appointment at a doctor, who I trust, I've | either given up on trying to resolve the issue myself and will | trust their prescription, or I have no idea how to approach the | issue or symptoms I'm feeling as communicated by WebMD. Your | value proposition is saving the consumer time and effort of | booking an appointment to find out how to best fix a minor- | medical issue they (or, say, their child) may have. Is that a | sustainable proposition? I don't know, but it makes much more | sense to me than as a tool to tell doctors how to do their job | "better". | | I'd imagine if you went the WebMD consumer route, too, once you | reach a certain user-size, you'd have no problem partnering with | pharmacies (or even pharmaceutical companies) to offer coupons | for some OTC medicines in exchange for a referral fee, as is | standard in the industry (a. la. GoodRx). Then you're providing | value to the consumer in the form of recommending useful | medicines, providing the consumer a way to get that medicine for | a lower cost, saving them time and money spent at the doctor's | office, and providing the pharmacy/pharmaceutical company a new | customer. | ddevault wrote: | This is a case-study in how capitalism fails. It is _not_ a | system that maximizes efficiency. Here we have a product which | materially improves peoples lives and health, which fails because | no one is incentivized to pay for it. If we had a nationalized | system it would be a no-brainer for the government to pick up the | bill. | | Capitalism sucks in general terms, but healthcare and capitalism | is an awful, evil combination. | newbie578 wrote: | Really interesting to read. We can all now be captain Hindsight, | but no point in stating the obvious, as long as you and others | reading it have learned from the story. | | Although, I have to mention, reading the article and seeing | mentions of MVP and no testing or concrete business plan, I | remembered the book "Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a | Successful Startup"[1] and I loved how Bill Aulet in the book | mentioned the MVP model and gave his own thought: | | Instead of everyone rushing MVPs, he recommends to people to | rather chase an MVBI, a minimum viable business idea, since as he | says, the purpose of a business is to create value and capture | it, since you are not running a charity. | | I must say he convinced me, and changed my line of thinking, it | does make sense when you think about it, you cannot build the | product for the sake of the product. | | I also like the quote "Real entrepreneurs fall in love not with | their product, but with their business plan." | | [1] - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18652777-disciplined- | ent... | laser wrote: | "Doppelganger has created value for the customer but not for the | company." | | Tell that to "Celebs", which's sole app function is the described | and makes ~$200K MRR. | twobitshifter wrote: | That's shocking to me. They have subscriptions? Why is someone | subscribing to an app like this? | | Looked at things on the App Store. It's not clear what a | subscription gets you but they're charging $4.99 _a week_ for | the premium features. | rdiddly wrote: | Yeah, I was going to chime in and say "I bet Doppelganger would | make more money than GlacierMD." Cynical content warning: | Precisely because it's not geared toward helping others, which | no one gives a shit about, and is all about _your photo of | yourself_ which everybody obsesses over. | rossmohax wrote: | Analysing studies and providing summary on various topics is what | examine.com does. I am a happy customer, so there is definitely a | way of monetising meta-analysis. | dvt wrote: | > So I built something people wanted. Consumers wanted it, | doctors wanted it, I wanted it. Where did I go wrong? | | A lot of people in this thread are talking about the woes of | ethical doctoring, the problems of healthcare, and so on. The | reality here is that _no one wanted it_ -- at least no one that | he was selling to. I can relate. I 've been there -- building | something for months and then hearing crickets. The Y Combinator | motto -- "Make something people want" -- is actually pretty tough | to get right. In fact, it's the crux of any viable business. The | reason why 9/10 businesses fail is largely in part due to the | fact that they _aren 't_ making something people want. | | Prospective customer interviews suck (especially for technical | folks), but they are integral to building a product people want. | Doing them before an MVP is crucial. | maxrobot wrote: | I am sure that by mining data from people's phones he could have | sold users data to the lowest bidder... | ummonk wrote: | This seems like it needs to be a nonprofit database - perhaps | funded by government grants or industry sponsors - rather than a | for-profit growth-oriented startup. | rel2thr wrote: | I like your idea, but I'm confused why you didn't try the webmd | competitor route.. 50c/user that webmd makes is pretty good | really , with good SEO + content marketing you could scale to | enough users to make things interesting | sixQuarks wrote: | Exactly. This was the right path in this case. The value is for | the consumer, if he could attract just 100K visitors per month, | that's $500,000/year. | | Not only that, he would have a highly targeted group of users | that he could tailor all kinds of products and services to. | ivalm wrote: | You need 1mil visitors for 500k. | saaaaaam wrote: | Indeed. Which what 100k per month comes to, give or take :) | yaboy wrote: | You're both wrong. 100k visitors per month [?] 100k | unique users per month. Very different things! | patel011393 wrote: | As a researcher interested in improving evidence synthesis, I | would have loved to use this. Can't this still continue as a | volunteer service/non-profit/research project? It reminds me of | Examine (https://examine.com/) with broader application | potential... | ibudiallo wrote: | I thought I read this here before: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21947551 | | I still feel the same about it[1]: | | > Don't shut down the website. Keep it running and make the data | available in read only mode and add a donation button | (alternative to ads). It should cost $5 a month to host on linode | or digitalocean. Don't let the money you spent go down the drain. | | [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21951604 | extrememacaroni wrote: | This reminds me of an idea I had days ago of using an AI to tell | poisonous mushrooms from edible ones apart, from photos. | | Then I realized I don't want to be responsible for anyone's | death. | syntaxing wrote: | What if you limited the range from I don't know if it's | poisonous to X% likely poisonous vs is/is not poisonous? | eropple wrote: | People empirically do not understand probability in a useful | way. Folks will, in aggregate, read that as "X% poisonous", | not "X% chance to be kill you." | | "Oh, that's only 25%, it'll be fiiine." | byecomputer wrote: | Even if you can avoid being liable for it, I'd think most | people wouldn't want someone's death hanging over their head | for reasons beyond the legal. | frompdx wrote: | Definitely a neat idea, but how would this work? Most | identification starts with a spore print. What if instead of an | AI to identify mushrooms it was software that used a | classification system like what is described in "Mushrooms | Demystified". | | Edit: Should clarify most reading I have done on mushroom ID | involves taking spore prints as an essential step but it's not | always the rule. | harry8 wrote: | Isn't the volume so low on that and the latency requirements so | undemanding that ML is overkill to get the answer as well as | the accuracy issues with false positive for "not deadly" being | somewhat asymmetric? | | I still think of ML as having a niche of "mostly right is ok" | and useful for very, very large volume otherwise one or more | people does better for less. That may change in time. Self | driving cars are very close now they say, but i suppose we've | been hearing that for a few years without getting there. | nightsd01 wrote: | Already exists, I heard about it on NPR the other day (perhaps | the idea got implanted into your subconscious) | https://mushroomai.ml/#mushroomai | Const-me wrote: | I don't believe modern state of AI is good enough for the job. | At least not yet. | | A human expert might look at your photo and instead of saying | "you may / should not eat that" start asking questions, about | local ecosystem, climate and weather. Or they might ask you to | shoot more photos, e.g. bottom of the cap or microscopic photo | of spores. | | I'm not an expert in AI but based on what I know they aren't | smart enough for that, at least not yet. | klyrs wrote: | Yikes! Some species require microscopes to differentiate. | Thanks for not making that app! | MichaelRazum wrote: | I think the idea is good. Something like AI suggested drugs. But | I guess that is hard to do the right way. On the other hand if I | really care for the a new drug I take. Just using google scholar | and quite often you have some summery studies which compare | different meds. | raverbashing wrote: | I think this was posted already (a couple of years? ago) | | Anyway, yeah, it wasn't a good value proposition (and is it just | me or GlacierMD is a bad name for this)? | | Because in the end, it doesn't matter much if you don't get "the | _absolutely best choice_ of drug ". If it solves your problem | great, if not, doctors can exchange it, but that's when the drug | or dosage is bad, not "not great". | jaywalk wrote: | From Glacier, it's a very short mental route to Titanic. So, | yeah I'd say naming your product that brings up thoughts of the | Titanic is not great. | rusteh1 wrote: | Iceberg != Glacier. AWS manages to market Glacier without | people expecting S3 to sink to the bottom of the Atlantic | jaywalk wrote: | Good point, but AWS Glacier also has a very clear | connection to the word since it's a cold storage service. | stevewodil wrote: | I would definitely look at antidepressants on GlacierMD, | because I think I want to take one but the options and side | effects are all over the place | yawnxyz wrote: | yeah if it was something like "we can recommend a cheaper drug" | then there might be an incentive... but also that's not how | drugs are even priced. The healthcare world is such a mess. | Charging doctor's offices for SaaS is very very tricky. | danhak wrote: | Healthcare is tough. There are few markets with more inertia and | misaligned incentives than this. | | With respect to pitching the product directly to clinicians, OP | may have misunderstood his target market or overestimated the | value proposition. | | It seems like a very big request to ask a doctor to deviate from | a treatment with which they already have a high level of | experience. | gjs278 wrote: | it would probably cost what, $20 a month to keep this on line if | it has very few users? why not just keep it online and stop | updating it? | Brian_K_White wrote: | Sounds like this might work to offer it to doctors as a white | label phone app or pwa, that each customer (doctor or group or | clinic or hospital etc) skins and gives to their own customers or | sticks on their own website. | | It has the recommendation engine and the doctors marketing looks | and some forms of low-friction way to contact the doctor | (generate billable service) from email to video chat. | | Doctor pays for the startup skinning, any feature changes or | updates, and a subscription which pays for ongoing development of | the engine and the datasets, maybe some related hosting. | | Doctor maybe gives the app to tge users free, maybe charges if | they think they can pull it off, and generates sales from the in- | app "help me" buttons. | | Could have a few quasi-generic versions geared to different kinds | of practises that smaller practices could share. | joeraut wrote: | Original post from January 2020: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21947551 | baxtr wrote: | _> But in fact everyone gave me some version of Susan 's answer. | "We just can't justify the cost," a pediatrician told me. "I'm | not sure it's in the budget," said a primary care physician. | "It's awesome," said a hospitalist. "You should try to sell | this!" Ugh._ | | In B2B People pay either to reduce costs or drive sales. It's as | easy as that. | gnicholas wrote: | Previously discussed: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21947551 | | Weird that the blog post is dated Oct 2020 but was apparently | discussed on HN in Jan 2020... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-18 23:00 UTC)