Header Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

1 Tbp runs, but probably not on *your* Hiseq

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ymc
    replied
    Wow. 1Tbp in 6 days! That's 3x the throughput of 600Gbp in 11 days!

    If we assume the machine can lasts 2 yrs and costs $750K, then the per day equipment amortization cost will drop from $1,027 to $342!

    Leave a comment:


  • bilyl
    replied
    Originally posted by BBoy View Post
    So how many of you bought video players or Rokus in 2012 and tried to hook them up to 3+ year old TV without HDMI ports? Betcha you did not think you were screwed by the TV maker and we're "entitled" to trade in the TV for a "rreasonable cost". Or when a car model in 2013 had some gizmo and you find out that it simply was not compatible with the older design? Betcha you don't expect auto makers to list what in the new model is not backward compatible with the old model.

    Frankly the tone of this discussion is more than a bit odd. True, commrrcia equipment is held to a higher standard but expecting the upgrade of a 3 year old major component is not exactly reasonable.
    That's ridiculous. For one thing, most of us are academics and we don't work in the free market. A HiSeq costs 750k and is a huge capital expense, especially with today's limited NIH/govt funding. If we were talking about consumer goods then you would have a point.

    Secondly, by having the new kits be unusable on the older machines, Illumina is purposely starving themselves of revenue. It is the reagent kits that make most of the money -- there aren't that many HiSeqs around the world.

    Lastly, users are disappointed in this thread because all upgraded machines are thought to be "HiSeq 2500"s except for some speed issues. Sequencing centers paid money to get their 2000s upgraded (many of them happened this year!!), and there was no guidance from the company on how these won't be able to use new kits. If these centers had known, many of them would have passed on the upgrade and saved up for a brand new machine.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmcarr
    replied
    Originally posted by BBoy View Post
    Or when a car model in 2013 had some gizmo and you find out that it simply was not compatible with the older design? Betcha you don't expect auto makers to list what in the new model is not backward compatible with the old model.
    But it is obvious to the owner of a 2010 Toyota Carolla that the 2013 is a different car. The problem is Illumina never made clear that they were making substantial changes to instruments being sold as "HiSeq 2000", leaving the impression that all HiSeq 2000s sold are substantially identical. I imagine they could have avoided much of this blow back had they simply renamed the instrument at the time improved the camera system (e.g. HiSeq 2000 Model II).

    Leave a comment:


  • SNPsaurus
    replied
    I think it is reasonable for Illumina to have the upgrade path... it is just unfortunate that many facilities are possibly facing a difficult situation. It is also unfortunate that many machines were recently upgraded to the 2500 and it wasn't clear at that time that the 2500 upgrade was substantially different from a factory-built 2500.

    Leave a comment:


  • BBoy
    replied
    So how many of you bought video players or Rokus in 2012 and tried to hook them up to 3+ year old TV without HDMI ports? Betcha you did not think you were screwed by the TV maker and we're "entitled" to trade in the TV for a "rreasonable cost". Or when a car model in 2013 had some gizmo and you find out that it simply was not compatible with the older design? Betcha you don't expect auto makers to list what in the new model is not backward compatible with the old model.

    Frankly the tone of this discussion is more than a bit odd. True, commrrcia equipment is held to a higher standard but expecting the upgrade of a 3 year old major component is not exactly reasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • AllSeq
    replied
    Originally posted by andibody View Post
    Our local sales representative just explained that the 2x250 upgrade is independent from the 1Tb upgrade.
    One of our HiSeqs was upgraded this year to 2500 but it seems that the camera is still too old for for 1Tb upgrade (not to mention our 2011 HiSeq) and I was just told there is no way to upgrade the camera?!
    It would be frustrating if we need to trade in our HiSeqs for newer ones if it's not at very reasonable conditions.
    Think it's bad policy to announce such an upgrade without including perspectives for customers that didn't buy their HiSeq yesterday (most of us).
    If the 1Tb upgrade substantially shifts the EUR per Gbp ratio to the better, this update will be a must for core facilities if they want to stay competitive.
    There are three upcoming 'upgrades' for the HiSeq platform, and all are independent of each other:
    1) 1Tb kits (which require 'factory installed' 2500/1500s or 2013 2000/1000s)
    2) 2X250 kits (no special requirements as far as I know)
    3) semi-ordered flow cells (available only for certain applications)

    I've talked with a number of people at Illumina and it seems the 1Tb upgrade for 'old' HiSeqs would be prohibitively expensive as it would entail shipping the instrument back to Illumina (and replacing multiple parts).

    They then reminded me that the HiSeq has seen a 3-fold increase in capacity since the original launch, so at least you have that. ;-) But I definitely agree that it won't be possible to compete on price alone without the 1Tb upgrade.

    Shawn
    AllSeq

    Leave a comment:


  • andibody
    replied
    Our local sales representative just explained that the 2x250 upgrade is independent from the 1Tb upgrade.
    One of our HiSeqs was upgraded this year to 2500 but it seems that the camera is still too old for for 1Tb upgrade (not to mention our 2011 HiSeq) and I was just told there is no way to upgrade the camera?!
    It would be frustrating if we need to trade in our HiSeqs for newer ones if it's not at very reasonable conditions.
    Think it's bad policy to announce such an upgrade without including perspectives for customers that didn't buy their HiSeq yesterday (most of us).
    If the 1Tb upgrade substantially shifts the EUR per Gbp ratio to the better, this update will be a must for core facilities if they want to stay competitive.

    Leave a comment:


  • bilyl
    replied
    Originally posted by snetmcom View Post
    I'm trying to scale down, not up. Seems unusual for them to be doing this, but new chemistry might entice other folks.
    This is what I don't understand. I'm sure that the majority of Illumina's revenues don't come from the machines themselves but rather the sequencing kits. How many Universities (or companies, for that matter) will pony up for a new HiSeq machine if they invested in one during the past 2-3 years? It's really bizarre and means that only a few select places will be able to utilize the "v3" HiSeq chemistry and that's not very good for their revenue.

    Leave a comment:


  • snetmcom
    replied
    I'm trying to scale down, not up. Seems unusual for them to be doing this, but new chemistry might entice other folks.

    Leave a comment:


  • GW_OK
    replied
    Originally posted by bilyl View Post
    Why do you think the 2x250 runs will be tied to new machines? Do you have a source for that?
    Upgrades tend to be additive. If they're already showing a tendency to move beyond the current hardware, why make the next upgrade backwards compatible?

    Leave a comment:


  • GW_OK
    replied
    Originally posted by kmcarr View Post
    Is there a link detailing the requirements for the 1Tbp chemistry?
    Not as of yet. This quote from In Sequence is where I first picked up on it, then verified with both an FSE and my sales rep:
    All factory-built 2500 and 1500 systems are eligible, as well as 2000 and 1000 systems that were shipped in 2013.

    Leave a comment:


  • bilyl
    replied
    Originally posted by GW_OK View Post
    As a human-centric core with users increasingly interested in WGS, I could certainly use the upgrade. I'm afraid this also means that the pre-2013 machines will not be able to run the PE250's whenever they come out, something my microbiome/metagenomics keep asking me about so they can start really multiplexing samples.

    I do agree that leasing is now most likely going to be the way to procure an instrument, and I am glad that my core only has another year or so left on our second machine.
    Why do you think the 2x250 runs will be tied to new machines? Do you have a source for that?

    Leave a comment:


  • GenoMax
    replied
    Originally posted by SNPsaurus View Post
    Users may not need the 1 Tb upgrade, but core facilities may have a harder time if users see that they can get more reads elsewhere. The ballpark cost to upgrade as my local facility heard was $500k, and the machine would need to be removed from the site, which makes that option not realistic.
    That cost estimates sounds over the top (unless it was for more than one machine).

    As with these things the new chemistry is bound to come with a price premium so the effective cost for the end users will be higher (though they will get more data).

    To upgrade or not would be a dilemma for facilities/units that have only one or a couple of machines.

    Does anyone know if this upgrade includes the ordered flowcells along with new chemistry or just one of the two?

    Leave a comment:


  • kmcarr
    replied
    Is there a link detailing the requirements for the 1Tbp chemistry?

    Leave a comment:


  • SNPsaurus
    replied
    Users may not need the 1 Tb upgrade, but core facilities may have a harder time if users see that they can get more reads elsewhere. The ballpark cost to upgrade as my local facility heard was $500k, and the machine would need to be removed from the site, which makes that option not realistic.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X