I agree the quote about the software is important. To me it implies that the mechanics of the manual interface are feeling solid to them, also the SPORT head-to-effector mechanisms. The make-or-break quality of those mechanisms have had me concerned. Surgeons who would find the manual interface problematic, or snake-arms that routinely break are examples of that concern. Also, they must have confidence that the effector design of their contracted company is good. Fowler suggests confidence here that those are all good enough at this point for a workable/sellable product, in his surgeon's view.
The software that interfaces the two can then really sing by enhancing surgeon control and then even beginning to provide automation to some tasks. That Fowler is implying this is very good and forward thinking. But the interesting thing to me is that you don't need a Google or limelight software house to write the kind of software SPORT will use. Most of it is just good basic engineering software, and there is innovation all over in that regard. So, I think the Google idea is a stretch. However, extreme forward-thinking about surgical navigation and automation would benefit from a Google-type powerhouse company.
Also recall that a listed indication for SPORT is vasectomy reversal. I believe that operation falls under the heading of a "micro-surgical" procedure. That means that SPORT is being designed with that level of fine-control and magnifying optics in mind.
Things are only looking better all the time here. I CAN NOT believe there is a Wall Street financial journalist who would not jump at the chance to write a mainstream article about Titan.
One final note: Really, to even consider a Surgibot platform robotic and in the same league as SPORT is ridiculous. Robots require software (whether it's mechanical, analog, or digital). Surgibot is a manual tool. Titan has only one competitor. The field is WIDE OPEN! And we are almost there.
