Speaker unverified: commitment

Transcript context

…Yeah, the two zero. That didn't pan out, and I think for a number of reasons. We're in a better situation where the hardware is really convenient, it's really good. I mean, I've been wearing a CGM from Abbott and/or Dexcom for going on three years now continuously. The biggest issue remains the insightfulness and actionability of the data. That's where our core competency, our core focus is centered, is improving the delta between the raw data coming out of a device and behavior change that needs to happen. For right now, although there is ground to be covered on the hardware, no doubt. I'm also looking to the future where sensors are not just measuring one analyte, they're measuring multiple, and they're doing it seamlessly and in combination with say, superficial metrics like pulse, body temperature, et cetera. That is the direction we're moving. I think we will evaluate all of the options necessary to make sure that that future comes true. We're not going to stand by and just like, hey, we got great software. Anyone want to give us great sensors too? It'll be a situation where we're going to jointly develop and/or create the attention necessary that there is a market here but innovation has to happen to feed it. Certainly being a hardware systems background myself, I'm more than happy to get my hands dirty if necessary. I bet. From a value capture perspective then, as I think through the value chain of you're providing the insights layer, the software, and the consumer experience, you're relying on other people to provide the hardware. This hardware has been in development for a really long time. How much of what the consumer ultimately ends up paying do you get to capture versus having to pass along to the device manufacturers?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.