Clearly there's a big difference between a businessman saying such things and professional scientists and clinicians.
I don’t think it was just competitive posturing. He genuinely was down talking what is arguably the most successful consumer product of the last 50 years.
Professionals panning Theranos were not doing so because they thought it could not sell, or the cost, or other market-based concerns. They had "what you're saying is not possible based on my understanding of the physical world" concerns, and those questions were never answered at any point because it was a fraud and there was no answer.
That's exactly what Ballmer was commenting on - the iPhone's $500 price (IIRC) was going to cause sticker shock, had it not been spread over a 24-month contract period. When Job's announced the price, he didn't mention carrier financing.
And how are all smartphone apps developed?
However, most of the knowledge about such things is "siloed" inside the lab science community itself, without much awareness from the outside.
That being said, I think so few Valley VCs got duped because they actually did the due diligence and determined this was in the "not physically possible" realm.
“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
listen to reason, not authority
I know it’s popular (and sometimes true) to blame scientists for failing to adopt new ideas, but I don’t think you get to play that card in a situation where the alleged ideas are being kept secret. And yet many do play that card. As a scientist if someone arrives with a product that implies a massive (but unpublished) scientific breakthrough, then I’m going to express polite skepticism until they publish their results. If for whatever business reason, the startup wants to keep their breakthrough secret (rather than publishing and patenting it), well that rings alarm bells — but even then surely the investors can hire outside experts to review the science under NDA. If the startup refuses even that, then I think you need to accept that the most likely possibility is fraud rather than someone figuring out how to bypass the laws of thermodynamics or whatever.
I know a bit about the clinical laboratory environment through a close relation. In fact, that person was the first clue I had that Theranos was BS. (This was before the WSJ article or any of the whistle blowers had come forward.)
Clinical laboratories are so resource constrained that FDA regulation would literally kill them. And many may not realize this, but 75%+ of any diagnosis is actually done by the lab. Care teams make hypotheses and labs reject them.
I feel somewhat sympathetic to this article's thesis, that these "fraud" laws are meant more as a bailout for rich and powerful people as a way to pin blame on a scape goat. A regular person defrauded by a bank or some other professional would have no hope of bringing their abuser to a criminal trial. But demonizing then CLIA loophole as if it is some ghastly deviation only fixed by the Powerful and Mighty FDA seems short-sighted.
Again, keep in mind that basically all lab scientists, all medical researchers who investigate lab procedures and all of the academics who study this and teach the next generation said Theranos was BS long before the government or press.
No one listened to them.