"It's always easier to get a non invasive system approved, compared with an invasive one."
Invasiveness really is not the main question for a BGM system. The main questions are accuracy and precision. With diabetes if you give the wrong answer there can be some very serious consequences. I think the approval process would not be much deferent between transcutaneous vs subcutaneous. The testing sure; but the actual agency reviews should be similar. And don’t forget the problems Cygnus had with their transcutaneous device. Just because it doesn’t break the skin does not always mean a device is non-invasive.
Where a less invasive product would shine is with market acceptance.
As far a Gregg’s reference to the competition, I’ve listened to his investor presentations for years when he was with MiniMed and DexCom. As far as I can remember a time when he has always had some discussion about the competitive space. I would read too much into the presence or absence of the competitive space details.