As for what is 'disruptive' about APAS i'm still, as a...

As for what is 'disruptive' about APAS i'm still, as a microbiologist, not convinced and will take the hype with a pinch of salt. It will be a long time before colony morphology alone will be accepted as a confirmatory test for bacterial ID and so we will continue to need scientists both for screening plates and further ID, though the number of scientists required will be reduced. If we placed APAS within the BD Kiestra TLA workflow for example then yes you would reduce the number of scientists required at the 'Screening' station, but given that APAS still flags plates for review by a scientist due to enumeration or ID difficulties then you would still need someone manning that station.

Bacterial morphology is hugely variant not just between species but within species and within growth phases, sample types and patient physiology. Looking at John Glasson's publication in the JCM the language used throughout is that APAS is intended to 'Screen' and 'segregate', this quote summing it up for me nicely :
'Differentiation was based on the physical characteristics and color reactions associated with the agar formula, with the groupings designed as a guide for interpretation and not as a replacement for formal identification procedures'
http://jcm.asm.org/content/54/2/300.full.pdf html
The system performed great sensitivity wise but not so great specificity wise, and so currently it's utility is largely for screening and would need to be tied to MALDI-TOF or biochemical ID.

As I said i'm just taking things with a pinch of salt. I think it is fantastic aussie technology and will be buying shares, but I wont be surprised if APAS doesn't revolutionize the microbiology lab. I see it more as an important piece in the microbiology automation puzzle...and it may not be the only offering for long.

Good luck to all!