Visual Prosthesis Market May Follow Uncharted Path
by James Cavuoto, Neurotech Business Report, October 2002
A quick note on the relevance of the discussions presented in this article: This article might seem a bit outdated because it was published in 2002 and some of the "current" developments discussed within it are actually established technologies now. Nonetheless, this article still provides an interesting, yet general overview and outlook of the Visual Prosthesis Market that transcends the time stamp of its publication date.
The author begins by discussing several projects and their developments back in 2002, which gives an insight into the principle actors involved in this market. The author makes specific references to these commercial developers and research teams: Optobionics Corp., Second Sight LLC, Intelligent Implants, Naval Research Laboratories, London’s University College, the University of Houston, and NASA’s Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center. This wide range of projects and their progress in the field indicate that the market is appropriately populated with healthy, innovative and well-funded firms, which speaks to the commercial viability of this market segment. This is not a market segment that is stuck or floundering. It is a healthy--albeit underdeveloped--- segment that has potential to be quite successful.
Besides outlining the principle actors in the visual prosthesis market, this article also comments on the similarities and differences between the retinal implant market and the cochlear implant segment of the neural prosthesis market. This article indicates that many believe that the retinal implant market will follow the trajectory of the cochlear implant segment, but the author suggests otherwise. He points to two major factors that differentiate the segments: complexity and density. Retinal implants are far more technologically complex (with much more data processing) than cochlear implants and involve a nerve system whose organization is still not entirely understood. Furthermore, these implants are also facing manufacturing obstacles
in regards to inflated electrode density. As more electrode arrays are demanded in order to increase the quality of the processed data, issues of tissue damage and component failure are becoming more prevalent. These major differences between the retinal and cochlear implant market segments, the author argues, are so pronounced that the retinal implant market segment should not be modeled on the cochlear implant segment. He provides his own assessment of how the retinal implant market should be developed later on in his article.
The author provides two factors that make the retinal implant segment attractive to commercial development: intense public interest and many funders. The heightened public interest in the success of these implants stems from the current lack of aides and therapies that improve the quality of daily life of the blind. Commerical developers have found that they must downplay some of the innovations made in their field because patients are so willing to test the newest technologies. Secondly, there seems to be a surplus of funding within this market segment. In addition to the government and VC funding for this device development, there are also private and quasi-governmental institution investors who are within the visual disabilities community and are very interested in these retinal implants. This could mean that even the first-generation of these devices will be profitable, which is rare in the medical device markets because typically a period of time to legitimize the technology is often required.
Lastly, the author provides his own suggestions for the development of the retinal implant market. In light of the intense public interest, he suggests that manufacturers are careful not to erode the sense of confidence placed in this segment by the public and investors. He suggests that manufacturers stay realistic about timetables and results. He also suggests preliminary steps into the market would include visual aids that could be developed first before the "next generation of more general purpose prostheses." Therefore, it is acknowledged that this market segment is still underdeveloped and has a long road ahead of it but has a great potential for profitability and commercial viability.
by James Cavuoto, Neurotech Business Report, October 2002
A quick note on the relevance of the discussions presented in this article: This article might seem a bit outdated because it was published in 2002 and some of the "current" developments discussed within it are actually established technologies now. Nonetheless, this article still provides an interesting, yet general overview and outlook of the Visual Prosthesis Market that transcends the time stamp of its publication date.
The author begins by discussing several projects and their developments back in 2002, which gives an insight into the principle actors involved in this market. The author makes specific references to these commercial developers and research teams: Optobionics Corp., Second Sight LLC, Intelligent Implants, Naval Research Laboratories, London’s University College, the University of Houston, and NASA’s Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center. This wide range of projects and their progress in the field indicate that the market is appropriately populated with healthy, innovative and well-funded firms, which speaks to the commercial viability of this market segment. This is not a market segment that is stuck or floundering. It is a healthy--albeit underdeveloped--- segment that has potential to be quite successful.
Besides outlining the principle actors in the visual prosthesis market, this article also comments on the similarities and differences between the retinal implant market and the cochlear implant segment of the neural prosthesis market. This article indicates that many believe that the retinal implant market will follow the trajectory of the cochlear implant segment, but the author suggests otherwise. He points to two major factors that differentiate the segments: complexity and density. Retinal implants are far more technologically complex (with much more data processing) than cochlear implants and involve a nerve system whose organization is still not entirely understood. Furthermore, these implants are also facing manufacturing obstacles
in regards to inflated electrode density. As more electrode arrays are demanded in order to increase the quality of the processed data, issues of tissue damage and component failure are becoming more prevalent. These major differences between the retinal and cochlear implant market segments, the author argues, are so pronounced that the retinal implant market segment should not be modeled on the cochlear implant segment. He provides his own assessment of how the retinal implant market should be developed later on in his article.
The author provides two factors that make the retinal implant segment attractive to commercial development: intense public interest and many funders. The heightened public interest in the success of these implants stems from the current lack of aides and therapies that improve the quality of daily life of the blind. Commerical developers have found that they must downplay some of the innovations made in their field because patients are so willing to test the newest technologies. Secondly, there seems to be a surplus of funding within this market segment. In addition to the government and VC funding for this device development, there are also private and quasi-governmental institution investors who are within the visual disabilities community and are very interested in these retinal implants. This could mean that even the first-generation of these devices will be profitable, which is rare in the medical device markets because typically a period of time to legitimize the technology is often required.
Lastly, the author provides his own suggestions for the development of the retinal implant market. In light of the intense public interest, he suggests that manufacturers are careful not to erode the sense of confidence placed in this segment by the public and investors. He suggests that manufacturers stay realistic about timetables and results. He also suggests preliminary steps into the market would include visual aids that could be developed first before the "next generation of more general purpose prostheses." Therefore, it is acknowledged that this market segment is still underdeveloped and has a long road ahead of it but has a great potential for profitability and commercial viability.
No comments:
Post a Comment