A DNA app store is here, but proceed with caution

Helix uses “flow cells” like this one to sequence its customers’ genes. Each lane on the cell contains a sample of patient DNA.

A Silicon Valley startup called Helix is betting on the notion that not only do people want to learn more about their DNA, but they’ll also pay to keep interacting with it.

Today the company, which was founded in 2015 with $100 million from genomics giant Illumina, is launching its much-anticipated online hub where people can digitally explore their genetic code by downloading different applications on their computers or mobile devices. Think of it as an app store for your genome (see “10 Breakthrough Technologies 2016: DNA App Store”).

Personalized genetic information has become an affordable commodity. The early success of leaders like 23andMe and AncestryDNA, which sell DNA testing kits for $200 or less, has ushered in a wave of new companies offering direct-to-consumer genetic tests for everything from ancestry to the wine you should drink based on your DNA.

Most of these genetic testing kits are one-time deals. You spit in a tube, and your saliva is sent off to a lab to be analyzed. A few weeks later you get a long, detailed report of your genetic makeup. Helix CEO Robin Thurston says all that information can be daunting, and most people don’t come back to the data again and again. 

What aspects of your genome would you pay to learn about? Tell us in the comments.

With Helix, people will be able to choose the things about their genome they want to learn about. For an initial $80, Helix sequences the most important part of the genome – about 20,000 genes plus some other bits – called the exome. That information is digitized and stored by Helix, which doles out pieces of the information to companies selling other apps through Helix. “It’s our goal that someone will have a lifelong relationship with their DNA data,” Thurston says.

Other direct-to-consumer testing companies like 23andMe and AncestryDNA use a technology called genotyping to analyze a customer’s genes. Helix uses a more detailed method known as DNA sequencing, which yields about 100 times more information. So far, most people who have gotten exome sequencing, which can cost several hundred to more than a thousand dollars elsewhere, have been patients with rare or unknown medical conditions who hope their genes can provide more answers. Exome sequencing for healthy people is a new, untapped market. 

From the consumer side, people will have to get their genes sequenced only once, then they can choose from different apps in categories like ancestry, fitness, health, and nutrition and pay as they go. About a dozen companies are debuting apps on Helix today, and each app is designed to tell you something different about your genome. Some are more medically relevant, like those that estimate risk for inherited cholesterol and heart problems, test for food sensitivity, or check to see if you could pass a serious genetic condition on to your child. Only the apps people buy will have access to their personal information.

One company, Exploragen, says it can tell you about your sleep patterns – like whether you’re a morning person or a night owl – just by looking at your DNA (in case you needed help knowing that one). Another company, Dot One, will examine the tiny portion of your genes that makes you different from everyone else and print that unique code onto a customized fabric scarf (because, why not?).

A third company, Insitome, has an app that will determine what percentage of your DNA you inherited from Neanderthals and how those traits are relevant to your health. Insitome CEO Spencer Wells says this initial app will cost $30.

Wells, who previously led the National Geographic Society’s Genographic Project, which mapped human migration throughout history by analyzing people’s DNA samples, says he likes the idea of Helix’s platform because it means that companies can develop additional apps as new scientific discoveries are made about the human genome.

Helix has also managed to attract major medical institutions like the Mayo Clinic and Mount Sinai Health System to develop apps for its store. Eventually, Thurston wants to offer hundreds of apps. He estimates the average customer will buy three to five apps each.

But having access to all these DNA apps might not be a good thing for consumers. Daniel MacArthur, a scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School who studies the human genome, says there’s a danger associated with mixing medically serious tests, such as disease carrier testing, with a range of lifestyle, nutrition, and wellness tests that have little scientific evidence to support them.

“Promoting tests with little or no scientific backing runs the risk of inflating customer expectations and ultimately undermining consumer confidence in genuinely clinically useful genetic tests,” he says.

Direct-to-consumer genetic tests, including ones that claim to predict disease risk, are loosely regulated in the U.S. That worries Stephen Montgomery, a geneticist at Stanford University, who says the Helix platform creates a bigger opportunity for companies to develop products that don’t provide much value to people.

“Helix will have to think very carefully about what apps to allow on the platform,” he says. The average customer probably can’t discern which products are based on sound science from those that aren’t, so he hopes Helix will have some way of evaluating the quality of information the apps provide.

Cord-cutting costing pay TV big concerns

Pay-TV lost an estimated 802,000 subscribers in the first quarter,

The paradigm shifted away from network with schedules and channels some time ago but the behemoths are so huge and habits so ingrained into our society that broadcaster sill hang on to the idea that we’ll go back to watching appointment TV and the “innovators” of the 1980’s are not innovators any more.


Cord-Cutting in Focus for “Nervous” Investors as Pay TV Giants Prep for Earnings Season

Written by Josh Tulman

“Sub trends remain an overhang” for entertainment stocks, too, says one analyst, but there are expectations for a stronger back-half of 2017.

While pay TV giants have focused more and more on their broadband businesses, the spotlight is expected to again be on cord-cutting this earnings season.

The amount of pay TV subscriber losses in the first quarter had surprised, even shocked, Wall Street observers.

Traditional pay TV subscriber defections picked up speed in the first quarter with an estimated loss of 802,000 subscriptions, according to Kagan, a group within S&P Global Market Intelligence.

MoffettNathanson analyst Craig Moffett said that key pay TV companies he covers lost 809,000 in the first quarter, or 434,000 when including subscriber gains from streaming-only bundles. In the year-ago quarter, he had counted a drop of 141,000, or gain of 24,000 subscribers, respectively.

“Changing viewing habits point to mounting losses for traditional video services, and challengers are lining up to capitalize,” explained Ian Olgeirson, research director, S&P Global Market Intelligence, in a recent report.

Morgan Stanley analyst Benjamin Swinburne wrote after first-quarter earnings season that traditional pay TV sub trends were “surprisingly weak.” That also means that there will be increasing focus on how new streaming-only pay TV services do.

“The real surprise of the quarter was the acceleration of cord-cutting in legacy [pay TV] subscribers, which was not offset by the estimated gain in virtual [pay TV providers],” MoffettNathanson analyst Michael Nathanson said in a recent report. “This dynamic punishes those networks and companies that are not being carried by virtual [providers] and strikes at the heart of a more bullish”cord-cutting will stabilize’ media thesis.”

All this has hurt investor sentiment as far as pay TV and entertainment stocks go. “Secular concerns around cord-cutting, seasonality and competition from telco/emerging players are on the rise,” said Macquarie Capital analyst Amy Yong. “The pay TV industry lost about 1.6 million subs last year. Much to investor’s angst, this accelerated in the first quarter.”

For the second quarter, which is traditionally the weakest of the year as students and so-called “snowbirds,” or people who spend the winter in Florida and other warmer states, move and drop their pay TV subscriptions, many expect things to look even worse.

Moffett expects a second-quarter pay TV subscriber drop of around 1 million, worse than the loss of
775,000 in the year-ago period, or 696,000 when including streaming subscribers.

Wells Fargo analyst Marci Ryvicker even forecasts a second-quarter decline of 1.28 million traditional pay TV subscribers for key companies she covers, or 858,000 when including subscribers to new streaming bundles. “We know investors are nervous about this print,” she wrote in a recent report, citing the weak first quarter “coupled with the fact that the second quarter is the seasonally weakest quarter of the year, we’ve had the debut of two more streaming bundles via Hulu and YouTube, and competition from the incumbents has picked up (AT&T is aggressively promoting DirecTV and DirecTV Now, and there is no Verizon strike).”

Yong sees a less pronounced drop of around 494,000 subs for second-quarter earnings season, which AT&T kicks off Tuesday, followed on Thursday by Comcast, Charter Communications and Verizon.

Yong forecasts Comcast will post a 16,000 video subscriber decline for the period, Charter Communications, which has been pruning its customer base after the acquisition of Time Warner Cable, to report a 125,000 drop, Dish to lose 229,000 subs and Verizon FiOS to add 18,000 subs. AT&T will lose 313,000 U-Verse subs and add 171,000 DirecTV subs, she expects. For the full year 2017, she forecasts a 1.06 million decline in pay TV subs.

In her recent report “The Dog Days of Summer,” Yong wrote: “As we head into second-quarter earnings, we caution that seasonality is a headwind and that competition picked up noticeably,” particularly from telecom companies.

Entertainment stocks are also caught up in the pay TV subscriber trends given many companies have big cable networks units, which account for a majority of companies’ profit. “Sub trends remain an overhang,” for entertainment stocks, Jefferies analyst John Janedis wrote in a preview report. “Investor sentiment remains negative for the group, and we believe it is unlikely that second-quarter results will change the narrative, though the potential exists that fundamentals may not be as bad as feared.”
 
In any case, Wall Street observers predict improving trends in the back half of 2017. “We expect sub losses will slow in the second half [of the year] as AT&T simplifies its DirecTV Now plans and as Charter’s pruning efforts come to an end,” said Yong who forecasts a loss of 113,000 pay TV subscribers in the third quarter and a loss of only 7,000 in the fourth quarter.

New live-streaming video services, including DirecTV Now and recently launched offers from Hulu and YouTube, along with established offers from the likes of Sling TV, are likely to start having an impact, according to the analyst. “We believe these providers can cumulatively add at least 500,000-750,000 subs per year,” Yong said.

Swinburne says that entertainment stocks could also benefit from a stronger back-half in pay TV. “We continue to assign an”attractive’ industry view on media, where depressed valuations offer investors compelling risk/reward as the distribution revenues accelerate,” he wrote in a recent report.

This article originally appeared at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cord-cutting-focus-nervous-investors-as-pay-tv-giants-prep-earnings-1022812.

The “Maker Movement” Signals Renewed Education Interest for Skilled Trades

It has been a rough couple of years for the University of Phoenix.

The upstart college founded in the 1970s by John Sperling aimed to provide higher education aimed specifically at working adults. In the late early 2000s, the University of Phoenix expanded its offerings to more directly compete with traditional higher education institutions, offering masters and PhD degrees, for example, all the while continuing to cater to working adults.

Phoenix became the darling of investors, and soon grew in size and scope. At its height, it numbered perhaps 600,000 students, one of the largest universities in the world. U of Phoenix and other for-profit education companies ran afoul of the Obama administration and a Democratically-controlled Congress, which developed a series of regulations to curb the worst excesses of the sector. For-profit sector students defaulted on student loans at rates significantly higher than traditional higher education institutions, and many of these students did not graduate, saddled with student debt nevertheless.

Most notable among these regulations was the gainful employment rule, which requires that, as a condition for accepting federally-funded student loans, these colleges have to demonstrate that 90% of their graduates were employed in those careers for which they trained. Enrollment at The University of Phoenix has plummeted although it still remains in business, something that cannot be said of many other once-thriving for-profit education companies.

There is every reason to assume that The University of Phoenix and other for-profits will see their enrollments rise again. The sector is not going away, although the new competitors that will emerge will not look anything like Phoenix. The Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce reports that traditional colleges and universities represent $407 billion of the $1.1 trillion spent on postsecondary education and training, or only 37 percent of the total.

The expectation is that percentage will shrink over the next ten years, or stated another way, the share of the postsecondary education and training market provided by non-traditional competitors will grow. With the assumption that Republicans will hold the White House and both houses of Congress over the next eight years, regulations and policies that weakened the for-profit sector will be relaxed, and we can expect to see intuitions such as the University of Phoenix once again see increases in their enrollments.

But there is a new kind of for-profit institution to watch. So-called “pre-hire training companies” such as Galvanize.com and Revature.com will proliferate. These are companies that train people in marketable skills such as coding and big data analytics. Training typically takes between 12-26 weeks, after which graduates are awarded a certificate. What sets these companies apart is not only the speed and concentration of their curriculums (there are no general education requirements) but that these companies are aligned with employers who will hire graduates upon completion. Such training companies will draw students who might otherwise attend lower-tier colleges and universities or community colleges.

We are also seeing a renewed interest in skilled trades, interest which declined over the past generation. Over the next ten years, there will be increased interest in pursuing training in these areas, either as an alternative to traditional higher education or with colleges and universities developing new programs to attract these students. The “maker movement” signals a renewed interest in things and objects, in making and manufacture, and this may influence some traditional higher education institutions to turn toward advanced manufacturing as an undergraduate concentration.

The Massachusetts Department of Higher Education is already looking ahead to the workforce development needs for advanced manufacturing: “accelerating advances in materials, technologies and supply chain processes will require a workforce with substantially new and different knowledge, skills and abilities to build the products of the future. The public higher education system must consider and address these trends well in advance of employer demand as there is a lead-time to develop academic programs and in the 21st century economy; market opportunities will not wait.”

It is possible that such programs will be developed by traditional higher education institutions, but I anticipate that non-traditional providers such as for-profits and pre-hire training companies will seize upon the market opportunities and lead in educating for advanced manufacturing and the skilled trades.

David Staley is president of Columbus Futurists and a professor of history, design and educational studies at The Ohio State University. He is the host of CreativeMornings Columbus.

This article originally appeared at: http://www.columbusunderground.com/next-the-university-of-phoenix-rises-ds1.

Best of Will Ferrell

A graduate of the University of Southern California, Will Ferrell became interested in performing while a student at University High School in Irvine, California, where he made his school’s daily morning announcements over the public address system in disguised voices. 

He started as a member of the Los Angeles comedy/improvisation group The Groundlings, where fellow cast members Ana Gasteyer, Maya Rudolph and former “Saturday Night Live” (1975) repertory players such as Laraine Newman, Jon Lovitz and Phil Hartman began their careers. It was there he met Chris Kattan and the two became good friends and both went on to “Saturday Night Live” (1975) later. He has also appeared on several television programs, including “Strangers with Candy” (1999), “Grace Under Fire” (1993) and “Living Single” (1993) during his time at The Groundlings. Will also lent his voice to the armless and legless dad of cartoon family “The Oblongs”. 

In 1995 he became a feature cast member at “Saturday Night Live” (1975) during the show’s rapid re-casting. He was declared quite possibly the worst cast member ever during his first season. However, his talents of impersonations and range of characters shot him forward to making him arguably the greatest “Saturday Night Live” (1975) cast member ever. During his seven year run he is one of the few cast members to ever be nominated for an Emmy for a performance and played George W. Bush during the 2000 elections. 

He’s appeared in every “Saturday Night Live” (1975) movie since his premiere on the show in 1995. In 2002 he left “Saturday Night Live” (1975) and was the only cast member to ever receive a farewell from all the current cast members at the end of the season finale show. Since leaving the show Will has pursued a career in films. In 2000 he married and now lives in L.A.