Full comment
This format is painful to read, so I'm copying the content here. This is a series of tweets by link -- If you are using software to go after a legacy physical vertical, we are most excited if you do it "full stack" [0]. With @counsyl, we found that one cannot live by bioinformatics alone. So built a full clinical lab + software + national salesforce. Here is a video of our robotic genome factory: Also: insurance coverage, clearances, clinical integration... [1] The reason to do full stack is that it's hard to replace just one layer of an outdated legacy stack. CAC & integration costs can kill. For example, consider "restaurant powered by technology" vs "tech for restaurants". With code, reinvent industry and make better margins. You cannot automate something till you've done it manually many times. You cannot abstract an API till you've seen many specific examples. Need to build a site of the scale of link - and encounter all the problems - before you could do link . Reinventing agriculture? Build new kind of farm, w/ solar panels & self-driving tractors. Control all factors, show that code cuts costs. More examples of full stack startups.. Education: [2], Autos: [3], Hospitality: [4] By doing it end-to-end, you see things. First, sometimes a good reason beyond tradition (eg regulatory, logistical) for legacy practices. Second, your control of adjacent layers may eliminate the initial problem you were trying to solve. Analogous to: [5] Third, solving whole problem build
