JustBreathe
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
"Lots has changed since then."
Care to extrapolate?
Care to extrapolate?
CBS Evening News tommorow...balding cure
- Thread starter ang_99
- Start date
nervx
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
switters said:
Back then everyone thought aderans was way behind and a lot of new news was released late last year/early this year. projected release time, a strong push for fda testing, human testing, better esitmates on how much hair HM would grow, pricing and so forth. there's a lot of maybes and unknowns in that interview that have since become a little more clear.
nervx
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
I get info from every form of media and update info as i go along, there isn't any special news source you have to research all over.
The HM+hair transplant will depend on final results and the marketing guys at bosely but even in that old interview Washenik says if you only have diffuse thinning he doesn't see the need for the hair transplant part. The whole hair transplant thing comes about because they weren't sure how much hair the cells would grow but now we have a basic idea which turned out to be better than expected so things could change.
nervx
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
News2 said:
Intercytex showed hair growth in 5 of 7 trial subjects in a test designed not to grow any hair at all. Up to 65-ish hairs in the space a penny would cover. Pretty good considering final dosage will be much higher, mind you this is intercytex and not anderan so it's possible anderans method will be better/worse.
JustBreathe
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Hrmm scar tissue might interupt the hairs coming through?
The scar isnt going to be that big anyway, right?
What im really hoping for is the use of other peoples hair cells, since mine are going to be pretty much useless...but I have a feeling that's a whole other ball park for these guys and wouldnt come around for another 50 years.
Ah well.
The scar isnt going to be that big anyway, right?
What im really hoping for is the use of other peoples hair cells, since mine are going to be pretty much useless...but I have a feeling that's a whole other ball park for these guys and wouldnt come around for another 50 years.
Ah well.
Private Ryan
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
as long as the technology can let me have rather natural looking hair, i am more than happy...
Fallout Boy
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 3
Hey guys just curious...are both Aderans and Intercytex part of Bosley or working with Bosley? Or just Aderans?
Chrisknight
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Why are your cells no good?switters said:
JustBreathe
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
ChrisKnight - If I'm going to follow my dad's pattern of loss, his horseshoe (donor area) is extremly thin. There is still hair there, but you can see scalp all over. As it stands now I am losing loads of hair from the top AND the back and sides.
So if they even agree to try, they would probably mulitply hair which is just as sensitive to DHT as the hair on the top of my head, and it would all fall out again rather quickly.
I suppose depending on price I could keep getting the fuckers topped up...who knows.
Falloutboy - I have heard that whoever produces a workable product first (Anderans or Intercytex) that bosley will have first pick.
So if they even agree to try, they would probably mulitply hair which is just as sensitive to DHT as the hair on the top of my head, and it would all fall out again rather quickly.
I suppose depending on price I could keep getting the fuckers topped up...who knows.
Falloutboy - I have heard that whoever produces a workable product first (Anderans or Intercytex) that bosley will have first pick.
Has there been any talk about injection method? Cause the way of injection could affect the price. I'm thinking they could load it up in some kind of modified tatoo-gun and just let it dance over your head injecting loads of hair. If it's a fluid, why not? *Much* less fuzz than with a hair transplant.
I dunno, I don't have much to add to this topic anymore, so I'll be waiting with great anticipation.
It just brings me down when I think about the over-pricing I know they'll charge. There is really no reason to try to financially match hair transplant with HM, but I'm sure that opinion will be ignored by Bosley. Hmpf. Greedy sons of'.
I dunno, I don't have much to add to this topic anymore, so I'll be waiting with great anticipation.
It just brings me down when I think about the over-pricing I know they'll charge. There is really no reason to try to financially match hair transplant with HM, but I'm sure that opinion will be ignored by Bosley. Hmpf. Greedy sons of'.
Chrisknight
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Ah, I see. I thought that's what you were saying, just wanted to be clear.switters said:
jumpedthegun
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 2
i really don't care how much they charge. i just want them to get it out, and fast. i'll worry about the money later.
and i don't fault them for wanting to make tons of cash. money is what makes things happen. the greed that you are criticizing them for is the greed that just might cure your head.
and i don't fault them for wanting to make tons of cash. money is what makes things happen. the greed that you are criticizing them for is the greed that just might cure your head.
There are levels of greed that go between practical and retarded. It's stupid to over-charge cause you'll only get people absolutely desperate for the procedure, who base their entire persona on the presence of hair on their head.
Good greed is instrumental over-charging, in which the HM method might cost them about 1000 dollars for everything included, and you charge 2000 dollars. All of a sudden it's much more viable and you can get people who want more hair for whatever reason, be it male pattern baldness or otherwise.
It's not level-headed to throw cost out of the window for either client nor provider. I could get 10 000 dollars if I really wanted it, but at what actual cost?
There's just a point where it becomes silly. It's hair, just hair. It doesn't do anything but look pretty or not pretty. if you contrast that with eye-surgery, which is getting really cheap now, then that actually does something that's functional. If I wanted to be a pilot I could get an eye-surgery. A HM would take me nowhere and cost much more than the eye-surgery. In the everyday-reality, people are largely hesitant to spend big chunks of money at one time for cosmetic effects. I have other sh*t to pay, like bills and food and college.
All I'm saying is that with smart financial targeting, Bosley could become insanely wealthy if they make the whole thing financially viable and not this big stigmatic thing hair transplant has become which for most people is viewed as extreme, as a last resort because of the price.
Good greed is instrumental over-charging, in which the HM method might cost them about 1000 dollars for everything included, and you charge 2000 dollars. All of a sudden it's much more viable and you can get people who want more hair for whatever reason, be it male pattern baldness or otherwise.
It's not level-headed to throw cost out of the window for either client nor provider. I could get 10 000 dollars if I really wanted it, but at what actual cost?
There's just a point where it becomes silly. It's hair, just hair. It doesn't do anything but look pretty or not pretty. if you contrast that with eye-surgery, which is getting really cheap now, then that actually does something that's functional. If I wanted to be a pilot I could get an eye-surgery. A HM would take me nowhere and cost much more than the eye-surgery. In the everyday-reality, people are largely hesitant to spend big chunks of money at one time for cosmetic effects. I have other sh*t to pay, like bills and food and college.
All I'm saying is that with smart financial targeting, Bosley could become insanely wealthy if they make the whole thing financially viable and not this big stigmatic thing hair transplant has become which for most people is viewed as extreme, as a last resort because of the price.
markelbentley
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
DaSand
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 3
$1000 is a little too cheap and unrealistic IMHO. But then if every balding guy went for it for $1000 a head, they can make a good profit.
I was talking with a consultant not too long ago online and they said it might be around $8,000-$14,000. I
I just don't want the hair transplant, because I've seen hairlines created by those and to be honest, they don't look natural. Maybe they were bad ones.
Still looking forward to 2008, I'll be done with school by then hopefully!
I was talking with a consultant not too long ago online and they said it might be around $8,000-$14,000. I
I just don't want the hair transplant, because I've seen hairlines created by those and to be honest, they don't look natural. Maybe they were bad ones.
Still looking forward to 2008, I'll be done with school by then hopefully!
That's not what I said. I said it might cost the producer 1000 dollars to make and you double that amount for the customer to pay, so a HM costs 2000, or tops 3000 dollars.
I honestly don't see why this is so unrealistic. You don't need 10 nurses slaving over a bench cutting your neck-flap into tiny hairs and your doctor doesn't need to painstakingly spend 8 hours putting them in your head, being careful planting them in the right direction at the correct depth.
Here you have one doctor who tatoo-guns your head full of hair. And a few weeks in some lab, which might be the most expensive part.
I am not saying it's going to cost 2000-3000 dollars, it absolutely will NOT, it will more likely cost 8000 cause I don't believe for a second that they'll actually transfer the "HM costs a fraction of hair transplant" benefit over to the customer. So there won't be a revolution in hair-restoration that the collective news channels seem to sensationalistically say. It will cost the same as a hair transplant, ie, an obscene amount, but you get more hair. Oh wee indeed.
It just sucks that the people who arguably need it the most, the 20-something guy, will have the hardest time getting it.
The fact that Bosley will most likely patent the whole thing and create a monopoly of it doesn't exacly help making it affordable to everyone who wants it, so the whole "in 10 years balding will be optional, bald men will be the exception rather than the norm" and other silly statements people sprout forth on this forum is just fairy-tales I'm afraid.
I'll stand by my opinion that a low cost treatment will result in insane amounts of money for Bosley. If it costs 2000-3000 dollars to get a thick rug of hair on your head, how many of you would continue taking propecia and all the other crap you're taking? God, I'd get one session and then save up for a second one if my original hair falls out too much.
I'm probably NOT the only one who thinks that. This way, you can get people with even moderate hair-loss starting to save up for a HM rather than ordering that second shipment of propecia or avodart or whatever. The more people who give up current treatments and start saving for HM, the more money for Bosley. It's in bosley's best interest that as many people as possible get interested in HM and feel they can afford it. As I recall, testing for avodart fell through because the drug companies didn't think people would care enough since we already have propecia. I feel the same thing will happen with HM unless it's brought forth, fronting it's huge advantages over hair transplant.
- Theoretically endless supply
- Takes less time to administer at the surgeon
- Is *much* cheaper than hair transplant
- Possibly takes less training to do, thus further lowering the cost
- As close as a cure as we have ever got.
It's all about differentiating yourself and creating in the customer, a perceived need for this procedure. For the average joe who doesn't spend most of his day on hairloss forum, he'll probably stick to propecia if HM comes at a 8000 dollar price-point.
Those are just my thoughts on it. We see it time and time again. Give enough percieved customer quality at a reasonable price and you'll get a bigger customer base and in the end turn up more profit. Over-charging just because some people are desperate enough to go through it is just short-sighted economics and overall a bad strategy.
But I won't hold my breath for this to happen. You're welcome to prove me wrong Bosley. But I'd rather shave my head for a couple of years if you come storming out the gate with your patent and a 10 grand price-tag.
I honestly don't see why this is so unrealistic. You don't need 10 nurses slaving over a bench cutting your neck-flap into tiny hairs and your doctor doesn't need to painstakingly spend 8 hours putting them in your head, being careful planting them in the right direction at the correct depth.
Here you have one doctor who tatoo-guns your head full of hair. And a few weeks in some lab, which might be the most expensive part.
I am not saying it's going to cost 2000-3000 dollars, it absolutely will NOT, it will more likely cost 8000 cause I don't believe for a second that they'll actually transfer the "HM costs a fraction of hair transplant" benefit over to the customer. So there won't be a revolution in hair-restoration that the collective news channels seem to sensationalistically say. It will cost the same as a hair transplant, ie, an obscene amount, but you get more hair. Oh wee indeed.
It just sucks that the people who arguably need it the most, the 20-something guy, will have the hardest time getting it.
The fact that Bosley will most likely patent the whole thing and create a monopoly of it doesn't exacly help making it affordable to everyone who wants it, so the whole "in 10 years balding will be optional, bald men will be the exception rather than the norm" and other silly statements people sprout forth on this forum is just fairy-tales I'm afraid.
I'll stand by my opinion that a low cost treatment will result in insane amounts of money for Bosley. If it costs 2000-3000 dollars to get a thick rug of hair on your head, how many of you would continue taking propecia and all the other crap you're taking? God, I'd get one session and then save up for a second one if my original hair falls out too much.
I'm probably NOT the only one who thinks that. This way, you can get people with even moderate hair-loss starting to save up for a HM rather than ordering that second shipment of propecia or avodart or whatever. The more people who give up current treatments and start saving for HM, the more money for Bosley. It's in bosley's best interest that as many people as possible get interested in HM and feel they can afford it. As I recall, testing for avodart fell through because the drug companies didn't think people would care enough since we already have propecia. I feel the same thing will happen with HM unless it's brought forth, fronting it's huge advantages over hair transplant.
- Theoretically endless supply
- Takes less time to administer at the surgeon
- Is *much* cheaper than hair transplant
- Possibly takes less training to do, thus further lowering the cost
- As close as a cure as we have ever got.
It's all about differentiating yourself and creating in the customer, a perceived need for this procedure. For the average joe who doesn't spend most of his day on hairloss forum, he'll probably stick to propecia if HM comes at a 8000 dollar price-point.
Those are just my thoughts on it. We see it time and time again. Give enough percieved customer quality at a reasonable price and you'll get a bigger customer base and in the end turn up more profit. Over-charging just because some people are desperate enough to go through it is just short-sighted economics and overall a bad strategy.
But I won't hold my breath for this to happen. You're welcome to prove me wrong Bosley. But I'd rather shave my head for a couple of years if you come storming out the gate with your patent and a 10 grand price-tag.