News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by darawk on Friday April 13, 2018 @11:33AM (#16830943)
This sounds cute, but isn't really true. In a competitive market, there is still an incentive to find cures. If company A has a treatment with the properties you describe on the market, and company B comes out with a cure, guess who's going to get all the business?
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by andrepd on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:21PM (#16831451)
Not if both company A and B (correctly) assess that they will reap more profits by investing in chronic treatment even when a one-shot cure is possible.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by darawk on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:29PM (#16831522)
No, because that's an unstable equilibrium. If you are company B, you know you can steal 100% of the business by finding a cure.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by andrepd on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:58PM (#16831771)
You can theorise all you want, but the world is rife with examples of what I said being true. As always, experiment must trump theory.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by andrewla on Friday April 13, 2018 @01:08PM (#16831861)
Certainly there are lots of cases of expensive long-term treatments being developed.

Do you have examples of situations where cures have been suppressed in favor of expensive long-term treatments? Especially in a competitive environment, where there were multiple players offering competing long-term treatments that were both aware of cures?

Preferably this would be something supported by leaked or court documents, but independent investigations would also be interesting. I understand this is a high burden of proof, but everything I've seen seems to indicate that this is an urban myth. I certainly couldn't find any specific cases in a cursory search.

Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by darawk on Friday April 13, 2018 @01:55PM (#16832308)
Name literally one example of that being true. I'll wait.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by Zooper on Friday April 13, 2018 @05:02PM (#16833882)
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by darawk on Friday April 13, 2018 @06:28PM (#16834440)
In what way is sales and marketing spend related?
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by landryraccoon on Friday April 13, 2018 @02:38PM (#16832738)
Only if cures are equally expensive to develop as ongoing treatments. If cures are substantially more expensive to develop, then the system never gets over the activation energy (or it takes an extremely long time).
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by darawk on Friday April 13, 2018 @02:54PM (#16832897)
This may be true, but I think it has more to do with people's willingness to pay more for treatments (over time), than for cures (one time expense). This is an unfortunate irrationality that I think is probably the source of this problem, to the extent that it exists.

All else equal, people should be willing to pay a bit more (in terms of lifetime cost) for a cure than a treatment (certainty, finality premium). If that is the case, then cures are always at least equally worth developing. If that's not the case however, then yes we do indeed run into a bad local minima.

Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by landryraccoon on Friday April 13, 2018 @03:28PM (#16833194)
> All else equal, people should be willing to pay a bit more (in terms of lifetime cost) for a cure than a treatment (certainty, finality premium).

This certainly isn't true in social games. If anything it's the opposite - players will commonly pay more in subscription fees than they would for a total one time unlock of everything, since the immediate short term payment is less.

Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by darawk on Friday April 13, 2018 @03:45PM (#16833307)
I said should. The problem is that they aren't.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by lowbloodsugar on Friday April 13, 2018 @02:01PM (#16832371)
Like, if you invented a digital camera and successfully patented it.
Re:Goldman Sachs questions whether curing patients is a sust... by turok on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @12:09AM (#16855398)
This assumes A & B haven't both developed a cure and are holding it back until the other party releases their cure. Neither do because of the profits being made on the perpetual treatment, if either does then the other also releases a cure.