Yes, absolutely. However, the nanopore sequencer has to have more than one limited-applicability advantage for it to be commercially successful against competitors. Just consider seriously for a minute what has actually been described (not hyped about) in this paper.
1) A mobile lab in a suitcase including sequencer - yes, that's awesome
2) Deployed to a region experiencing an outbreak
- ok, can be useful, but how many outbreaks occur every year that actually benefit from on-site sequencing
- in the case of Ebola, which spreads and mutates quickly, the advantage may be very real, but Zika? the flu? not so sure
- is the advantage enough to offset the tremendous cost compared to alternatives?
3) They did sequence a segment of the viral genome (not the whole genome) and successfully call base mismatches
- but they didn't call indels
- they ignored homopolymer regions and the ends of their amplicons
- they did get some useful information, but there were samples that they couldn't successfully analyze after sequencing
So in the end, it is a sequencer that can be deployed to remote villages, provided you have a very limited set of analyses you intend to do, and you don't care about the cost. But is that enough to be commercially viable and displace competitors? I don't think so.
I'm not trying to rag on Oxford Nanopore, don't get me wrong. If they really could reliably sequence whole genomes fast and with minimal preparation from a usb stick, I would definitely jump on the bandwagon. I'm just tired of all the hype. They've been promising these breakthroughs for more than a decade now, but they have yet to deliver. Meanwhile other companies, namely PacBio, have appeared and been very successful at providing long reads at an affordable cost, so I'm not holding my breath for ONP.