View Single Post
Old 03-14-2012, 08:36 PM   #15
seqingtruth
Junior Member
 
Location: C

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1
Default

I think you're underestimating how the market works: Maybe Life pulled in $35M in instrument sales during early access/initial launch, but you're not factoring in consumables, as this is where the profit is made. Remember, these are the people selling nuclease free water for $70/liter. Companies rarely profit off of instrument sales.

The giants also heavily stress test their platforms/reagents, putting them through product release cycles encompassing checkpoints, validations, early access etc. This also includes QA/QA, and large application and support groups. I can't forsee the success of the maxSeq or minSeq due to these factors, I really haven't seen proper development done. Life, Illumina, Roche, even Helicos had hundreds of people working on their platforms- unless you guys are in super secret stealth mode with sizable staff/funding, I can't be certain that this is a well developed, tested, and supported platform with good reagents. Hell, even Illumina sent out a quarter's worth of bad reagents.

I don't want to talk you down, or say that it isn't possible, but I just don't see how you're going to succeed in this market, competing against the giants of fluorophore (Illumina/Life), or the third gen revolution (Oxford/Ion/PacBio)? A slightly better fluorophore technology doesn't do much.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion this platform was developed with a specific customer in mind, whose actual core technology has nothing to do with fluorophores. Am I correct?
seqingtruth is offline   Reply With Quote