Comments
ROTORTheLibrarianToo t1_j9okhbt wrote
Was about to say the same thing. I can hear her monotone voice “That’s proprietary technology.”
Arturinni t1_j9q6p5p wrote
Monotone voice? You mean the "11yo kid pretending to sound adult to order a pizza voice"?
jackinsomniac t1_j9qmnbz wrote
Her voice always sounded weird to me, when it finally came out it was all an act I was 50/50 surprised and "oh yeah, that makes sense now."
herewego199209 t1_j9m48vs wrote
This to me is the game changer that will make Apple or whoever figures this out infinitely rich. If someone can build a wearable that can do blood pressure monitoring, which shouldn't be hard considering there's already wrist devices, and blood sugar monitoring they'll be infinitely rich.
PEVEI t1_j9mfzog wrote
Reliable blood pressure without a cuff, without something in the artery... that strikes me as a much harder problem than blood glucose monitoring, and that's not an easy problem either.
Dredly t1_j9nbpq4 wrote
The issue, for diabetics anyway, is they need continuous monitoring (more or less), to whoever jumps in that space needs to figure out the battery problem. having your watch need to sit on a charger for 30 - 45 minutes a day will make it much less useful
DanielPhermous t1_j9ndj4d wrote
> The issue, for diabetics anyway, is they need continuous monitoring
Given the current method of monitoring is to stab yourself and test the blood, it clearly doesn't need to be continuous. Obviously, the more often you take readings, the better, but if there are battery issues, then Apple will find a balance that works.
That said... Lots of people use the Apple Watch for sleep tracking which means that, yeah, they have to charge their watch when they're in the shower and the like. It's a deal, sure, but it's not a big deal.
Dredly t1_j9ndv43 wrote
the current method for the vast majority is to use a sensor like a dexcomm unit that provide continuous updates, typically for 10 days in a row...
​
most people utilize blood tests as a means of ensuring their unit is correct, not for monitoring anymore luckily.
ShellOilNigeria t1_j9ot61w wrote
> vast majority
You sure?
ziyadah042 t1_j9pzmoo wrote
It's not the vast majority. Insurance likes to be shitty about diabetes stuff. But a lot of them do.
guspaz t1_j9nm3th wrote
For diabetics that already wear a smartwatch, however, it will be a pure win.
Slippedhal0 t1_j9nmiv4 wrote
I mean I know it doesn't happen a lot anymore, but user replaceable batteries aren't that old that we've forgotten it exists. Instead of making batteriess larger, make them a little smaller and add a slot replacement mechanism.
Then you could make a AirPods style charging case that you can slot discharged batteries into, and always have a fresh one charged to use when the watch dies.
It likely wouldn't take off for people that can take off their watch at the end of the day, but people that need it, or truly cant part with it for whatever other reason, it seems like it would be a decent tradeoff.
Hi_Im_Ken_Adams t1_j9nvdkw wrote
Apple has no interest in making replaceable batteries. They literally glue the batteries and components together so that you can’t.
friedAmobo t1_j9p5h5f wrote
The batteries in iPhones are actually adhered using adhesive pull-tabs, which is the second most consumer-friendly method (the most would be a removable cover in the style of early smartphones). The hard part is that an iPhone battery replacement requires removal of the display and a bunch of other components, which can be time-consuming and difficult for someone who doesn't regularly do that kind of repair.
Hi_Im_Ken_Adams t1_j9ped3a wrote
I've replaced the battery in my iPhone before. I had to use a hairdryer to melt the adhesive. Perhaps those pull-tabs you mention are present in the newer iPhones?
friedAmobo t1_j9pjslw wrote
It's possible, though flipping through iFixit's guides (the 2G, 3G, 3GS, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 14 models), the first time adhesive pull tabs were referenced by them was in the iPhone 3G (the second-generation iPhone). They recommended against using the pull tabs in the 3G and 3GS, though. Unless Apple removed the pull tab at some point and then added it back in soon after (between the model generations I checked), it seems like iPhones have consistently had some form of a pull tab after the original iPhone.
What might have been possible is that the adhesive may have aged to the point where the pull tabs were no longer usable in your iPhone when you repaired it and the battery was essentially glued/adhered to the chassis at that point. Without the pull tabs (which can break when trying to use them), the battery adhesive basically becomes the same as the display adhesive, which also requires heat to remove.
Slippedhal0 t1_j9nxv18 wrote
right, but if it sold more products for a specific niche they'd probably think about it - after all a glucose measurement device is already niche
asdaaaaaaaa t1_j9ol2ek wrote
> but if it sold more products for a specific niche they'd probably think about it
*If it sold more products and provided more profit.
Doesn't matter if I sell 3 batteries for a total of 300$ when I can just force you to purchase an entire new device for 1,500$ in total every two years, along with additional services, contracts and stuff.
neuromorph t1_j9p9c03 wrote
We had off unit battery charging stations. No need to say air pod.....
Slippedhal0 t1_j9pz2sx wrote
I was using it as a reference for size and shape, and we were discussing apple.
neuromorph t1_j9q19zk wrote
you are talking about a replaceable watch batter? or phone?
Slippedhal0 t1_j9q39z8 wrote
? this whole discussion is about apple watches and their glucose monitor. The "airpods" mention was a portable charger station for replacable watch battery modules, the same way you chuck your airpods in the case to charge during the day.
cowings t1_j9p3str wrote
For the cost of medical devices these days, I would imagine that for some people buying 2 apple watches and switching them out would be cheaper than a 24-hr monitoring device.
Dont-know-you t1_j9rvmmj wrote
Get two watches to swap them. Problem solved.
ShaoFluff t1_j9zi7ay wrote
That doesn’t matter at all for me as a T1D, the charging thing at least.
76oakst t1_j9ncshj wrote
The Apple 🍎®️ solution - buy multiple watches
trancepx t1_j9novjt wrote
Clearly either ship two bands or two batteries
moon_then_mars t1_j9o13ox wrote
Maybe just buy two watches. Those blood sugar monitors are like $4000 each and an apple watch is like $350
trancepx t1_j9noqhd wrote
A band with a tiny air soft bladder, that could expand and then flatten in stages, would work, and its likely already patented.
arcosapphire t1_j9n20gw wrote
Why do you think that a product that is useful, but only for a small fraction of the population, would make "infinite" money? Smartphones are already tremendously more widespread, and are hardly an "infinite" source of wealth.
DanielPhermous t1_j9n39h5 wrote
> Why do you think that a product that is useful, but only for a small fraction of the population, would make "infinite" money?
The device can reportedly detect diabetes before it actually hits you, which would be invaluable for any pregnant women. Constant monitoring may also have other benefits in regards to informing exercise regimes, or providing some insight into other, more minor issues. Something along the lines of how constant blood oxygen monitoring can let you know if you're getting a serious respiratory ailment.
arcosapphire t1_j9n4eas wrote
Okay, so let's say they become as popular as smart phones, which are used by the majority of the planet. That's still not some game-breaking figure, as we know by the existence of smart phones which have not upended the world economy.
DanielPhermous t1_j9n56j9 wrote
You're reading way too much into some obvious hyperbole. Obviously it can't earn infinite money. We don't have infinite money. Clearly, Herewego just meant that they will make a shit-ton.
That is also hyperbole, by the way. A ton of excrement weighs no more than ton of anything else, including money.
However, yes, I can see the watch becoming more popular than smartphone long term. Machine learning is exceptionally good at finding patterns in noise and it is likely that the Apple Watch, using all of its sensors present and future, will be able to intuit medical conditions that we cannot.
At that point, why the fuck would you not buy one? They can already literally save your life. Add another five or ten things it could save your life from, plus early warnings on lesser problems like diabetes, and it's a no-brainer.
KhonMan t1_j9ncf37 wrote
I think the potential is more there to make smartwatches a real thing. It's a decent sized market now but still maybe only like 5% the size of the smartphone market.
swaskowi t1_j9p3mff wrote
The economics of medicine are deeply weird though, like I can imagine the Qaly's gained by such monitoring being worth subsidizing in some fashion, but in no other industry does an advance in the underlying tech contribute to acute suffering because, when Ferrari releases a new faster car, no one thinks they have to have it, but as soon as a regime that improves life outcomes exists people that can't afford the initial asking price become furious they can't afford it, contra Ferrari's. Despite the fact that they're no worse off than before the magic tech existed.
kaynpayn t1_j9nn8da wrote
According to google, around 10% of the world population is affected by diabetes. Far more are in a state of undiagnosed prediabetes that can be managed and prevented better if warned earlier, such a product would be very desirable. But at the very least, 10% of the world's population is a good number of people to branch out an investment.
Also, diabetes is one of those diseases that people manage, not cure. It won't stop existing or will end anytime soon, actually it's even expected to increase over the years. You'll always have clients for such a product and they tend to increase, hence the "infinite wealth" (which is an obvious exaggeration and meant as a hugely profitable), especially if you own a patent and are the only one selling it.
tiktaktok_65 t1_j9oaz8l wrote
you paywall these kind of services behind a subscription + service. but yeah it's probably not infinite money, but it can maybe eat into current glucose screening services rendered, i have no idea how much that market is in annual revenues.
Funicularly t1_j9qfqgg wrote
A small fraction? About 800 million people have diabetes, and many that don’t will in the future.
arcosapphire t1_j9qhovm wrote
And yet,
> There are over 5.22 billion smartphone users in the world, representing 66% of the global population.
My point remains that if making smartphones didn't break the economy, making an even less applicable device won't either.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I just don't think it's free money.
verynifty t1_j9oenyf wrote
Smartphones aren’t subsidized by insurance. A wearable that promotes health and could be proactive for certain afflictions would be huge.
PawnWithoutPurpose t1_j9mjeaj wrote
Yeah, this would be very big if it’s real and reliable
BobRobot77 t1_j9n4klh wrote
Aren't they like a trillion-dollar company? They can do whatever they want. If anything, it's a bit disappointing they haven't created more tech, considering the resources they have.
neuromorph t1_j9p92u8 wrote
Rich for 7 years.... then patent it up.
Avocadobaguette t1_j9mkh9k wrote
I hope it's a real breakthrough - it would be a huge quality of life improvement for so many with diabetes. I'm skeptical, though. I remember Google's life sciences division making big waves about a contact lens type glucose monitor maybe 10 years ago... they made some bold claims and then quietly dropped the project a few years later, if I recall.
DanielPhermous t1_j9n2m5x wrote
Sure, but that was Google. Apple has a much better track record with this kind of thing - and doesn't make bold claims until the tech is in a device ready to be shipped.
MakingItElsewhere t1_j9nhgvg wrote
Look, I *HATE* apple with a passion....but you're right on this.
moon_then_mars t1_j9o0y6z wrote
You may hate apple, but do you have a founders edition Stadia controller sitting around?
dusktrail t1_j9o9res wrote
I don't know, remember the charging pad thing?
DanielPhermous t1_j9oc4md wrote
"Much better track record" does not mean "perfect track record".
2KoolAwYe t1_j9ocmuy wrote
They constantly make claims that are "half true" about their products
The biggest example of this is Safari being the """fastest browser""" because they disabled most WebKit features that took effort to optimise
Or the time they claimed that you could make a feature film with final cut and an iPhone because ONE under budget studio made ONE indie film that barely anyone watched
Or the claim that Macs never get viruses, despite them having some absolute conkers in their time and the only reason they made that claim was because so few people used Macs at the time that nobody really bothered to make viruses for them, which rapidly changed with their popularity
Or the multiple times they've been announcing and delaying their self driving car
However, the stuff with their watch always seems to work, so I'd go with the product lines past performance, rather than trusting Apple as a brand, I have hope that this will be somewhat usable or at least shippable
ACCount82 t1_j9odcc2 wrote
Have they actually announced a self-driving car? I thought it was all in "leaks and rumors" category.
DanielPhermous t1_j9odxug wrote
>The biggest example of this is Safari being the """fastest browser""" because they disabled most WebKit features that took effort to optimise
Safari genuinely used to be the fastest browser when Apple was pushing it. I hadn't heard anything about them boasting it's faster while disabling features. Source?
>Or the time they claimed that you could make a feature film with final cut and an iPhone because ONE under budget studio made ONE indie film that barely anyone watched
What's wrong with that? If a feature film was made, then it's possible to make a feature film.
>Or the claim that Macs never get viruses, despite them having some absolute conkers in their time
As far as I'm aware, during the era they were making those claims, they never did. Oh, sure, some research labs made viruses as proof of concepts, but none got into the wild.
They did have a small amount of malware, however, but no viruses.
>...and the only reason they made that claim was because so few people used Macs at the time that nobody really bothered to make viruses for them, which rapidly changed with their popularity
MacOS 9 - before Jobs came back and replaced it with an entirely different UNIX based OS - had plenty of viruses and even less market share. So, if what you say is true, why did people bother to make viruses for Mac OS 9, but not Mac OS 10?
>Or the multiple times they've been announcing and delaying their self driving car
Apple has made no announcements regarding any car they may or may not be working on. Ever.
2KoolAwYe t1_j9of2t7 wrote
> Safari
Look up on a CSS comparison sites the specific version of safari you used and what was missing, I only noticed this because I was doing web development and constantly had to make similar """fixes""" for safari, potentially more than IE in some cases
> Feature film
It's possible to make an indie film or YouTube videos, their marketing suggested you could make the NEXT CINEMA BLOCKBUSTER
It's misleading, the case study they wrote on it also discussed the entire process like it was cutting edge, when it was really simple stuff
> Viruses/malware
Pal, you and I both know that paragraph is both a lie and full of cope
We can also go over the multiple kernel security exploits Apple constantly creates, despite claiming their software is """more secure"""
> OS 10
They did, what are you talking about?
> Car
I'll admit I might be wrong on this one, I'm pretty sure I've heard the company discuss the idea before though
DanielPhermous t1_j9ofs75 wrote
> Look up on a CSS comparison sites the specific version of safari you used and what was missing, I only noticed this because I was doing web development and constantly had to make similar """fixes""" for safari, potentially more than IE in some cases
That would only provide half the story. I requested a source that they were boasting it's faster while disabling features.
>It's possible to make an indie film or YouTube videos, their marketing suggested you could make the NEXT CINEMA BLOCKBUSTER
Those goal posts have shunted somewhat. A minute ago, it was just "feature film". Can you link an example of that marketing so we can see which version you've presented is the correct one?
>Pal, you and I both know that paragraph is both a lie and full of cope
Okay. Can you provide an example of a virus in the wild for Mac OS X from it's introduction until when, say, Steve died? That's about the period they were boasting about their lack of viruses.
>They did, what are you talking about?
You claimed people didn't bother writing viruses for the Mac because it wasn't popular enough to bother, but there were more viruses for Mac OS 9 than Mac OS X, even though it had less market share. Can you explain that discrepancy?
>I'll admit I might be wrong on this one, I'm pretty sure I've heard the company discuss the idea before though
Sure. Source?
2KoolAwYe t1_j9og1tx wrote
I'm not going to write you an essay or provide you sources because I get the feeling you're not going to accept them and I have better things to do
Google it or not, you have enough info to easily find all of it, I don't care if you believe me about the reality of these things
DanielPhermous t1_j9oh362 wrote
Bullshit is easy. Proving it is obviously more difficult.
Shrug.
2KoolAwYe t1_j9oi5zp wrote
Proving it would take more effort than it's worth, for someone who is going to clap back with semantics and not understand what I'm saying
The thing that broke me was thinking that there are versions of Mac OS without exploits or malicious software, after you saying that is very clear you're not prepared to listen, so I'm gonna take the downvotes from other pedants that don't want to look things up on here so I can enjoy my day off and not waste time researching on you
DanielPhermous t1_j9oll3s wrote
> The thing that broke me was thinking that there are versions of Mac OS without exploits or malicious software
And now you're lying about what I said, as if I can't remember.
"They did have a small amount of malware, however, but no viruses."
This is how you convince yourself you've won? By lying to yourself about what my arguments were?
That is no victory. That's your ego seeking catharsis.
Inbox replies disabled. There's no point talking to someone who will lie to my face about my own words.
2KoolAwYe t1_j9oo5kv wrote
No, it's the bit about Mac OS 9/10
This is exactly what I'm talking about
sf-keto t1_j9nmdo0 wrote
Technology has improved a lot in 10 years, however. Google maybe should have paused its project for a bit instead of canceling it.
M365Certified t1_j9pbtvn wrote
Thats so not the Google Way. The Google way is develop innovative product, launch while still immature. Promote the team to a new project. Kill all support while the B team tries to fix all the problems. Kill the project within 3 years of launch.
Unless the product is mining the userbase for new ways to advertise in invasive ways, then it will be pushed to the absolute limits.
Their once vaunted search engine - Top 3 results are now ads (sponsored links). 1 actual result (barely fits in the screen of my 27" monitor), followed by 4 "Suggestions"
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9m43eo wrote
Something called Beer’s Law will prevent this from being true. You need to know the path length to determine the concentration and that has always been why noninvasive continuous glucose monitors fail….unless calibrated and the only way to calibrate is with a finger stick. This has been attempted 1,000 times before. I highly doubt they have found a workaround for this.
Bismalz t1_j9mzbeq wrote
!remindme 5 years
insankty t1_j9m4hz5 wrote
They say nothing is impossible
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9m5lhv wrote
Let me introduce you to a physicist lol
PEVEI t1_j9mgnl3 wrote
While I tend to despise this argument, since it's often used to justify wank and sophistry, it is worth remembering that the history of physicists declaring something impossible is checkered at best. Proving a negative is just... really hard to do, but certainly the burden on anyone claiming a breakthrough in this area has to prove they've done something revolutionary... is very high.
tl;dr I share your doubts, but lets remember that even extremely unlikely ideas like FTL could someday be viable. It's unlikely for a list of reasons, but not 100% impossible.
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9n094l wrote
I’d love for it to be figured out. I’ve been working on for a long time as a side project. I just am not convinced it’s going to happen in my life time. Would be awesome though.
KhonMan t1_j9ncjzo wrote
You mean TL;DR: Science is a liar sometimes.
arcosapphire t1_j9n29vf wrote
> it is worth remembering that the history of physicists declaring something impossible is checkered at best.
Is it? How many things were declared impossible by physicists? To my knowledge, traveling faster than C and reversing entropy...and those are standing strong.
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9neid6 wrote
I did not say it’s impossible. I said they’d need to overcome our current understanding of Beer’s Law. And since the article mentioned it is using “optical absorption spectroscopy” this is a relevant assumption. Smart watches only have a basic set of LEDSs, a few photo detectors and possibly some ability to detect changes in electrical impedance….well that’s just not enough to overcome the calibration issue. A lot of people a lot smarter than I am have been working on this question for a long time, so, much like the issue with continuous noninvasive blood pressure, our current tools are not adequate. If they have solved it, great. I look forward to knowing more.
Druggedhippo t1_j9nssnw wrote
Not disagreeing since I know nothing about this topic, but there is a link in the article goes to this article which contains a bit more info
> Apple is taking a different approach, using a chip technology known as silicon photonics and a measurement process called optical absorption spectroscopy. The system uses lasers to emit specific wavelengths of light into an area below the skin where there is interstitial fluid — substances that leak out of capillaries — that can be absorbed by glucose. The light is then reflected back to the sensor in a way that indicates the concentration of glucose. An algorithm then determines a person’s blood glucose level.
...
> The company believes the technology is viable but needs to be shrunk down to a more practical size.... Engineers are working to develop a prototype device about the size of an iPhone that can be strapped to a person’s bicep. That would be a significant reduction from an early version of the system that sat atop a table.
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9nwknq wrote
Ahhh yes, the second article does have more details and seems more plausible. Much less exciting than the initial headline though of course lol. I will reserve judgment until more information is available but thank you for posting the next link, how innovative this is remains to be seen as similar approaches are already deployed in the field.
thecowintheroom t1_j9n0h2i wrote
Does God exist?
BFMN t1_j9mb3ab wrote
I don't need no psychic to tell me what I can and can't do!
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9pzdvp wrote
That’s right lol
DBDude t1_j9mjhaz wrote
And then another physicist comes along and says “Well, actually…”
moon_then_mars t1_j9o1ap4 wrote
They call it the iVee. The apple intravenous
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9pyw6m wrote
Lmao….that would be a great name lol
AnnexBlaster t1_j9nuqj8 wrote
The latest tech in continuous glucose monitors are microneedles that you can barely feel. This is likely what Apple has, and theyre able to advertise it as “noninvasive”
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9nw02s wrote
Yeah if that’s what Apple has, I don’t consider that a big breakthrough. And micro needles in my smart watch…..hmmm. But I’m willing to keep an open mind. Maybe my standard for “Breakthrough technology” is higher than Business Insider’s which seems highly likely.
DanielPhermous t1_j9n3f4m wrote
Oh? You're an expect on optical absorption spectroscopy? Could you explain why it won't work then?
NeurodivergentPie t1_j9ng8io wrote
I don’t argue with strangers on the interwebs but you are free to look up Beer’s Law or reference any college level physics or chemistry text book. This is not an obscure theory known only by academics. It’s a pretty useful tool that has allowed a lot of current blood analysis equipment to be designed to measure various components quite accurately. Here is an article that summarizes some of the current limitations.
timmy_3 t1_j9oplvd wrote
Type 1 here, I just bought my 3 month supply of Dexcom G6 WITH insurance and it was around $1300. If this watch can measure my BG I’ll pay $$$ for this, a $4000 price tag would have a ~1 year roi. Crazy. I’ll keep my hopes high but expectations low for this.
mig383 t1_j9n2ynb wrote
Was there not an article saying the opposite quite recently?
E1_Gr33d0 t1_j9ojixz wrote
I have type 1 and I don’t believe this for a second.
BobRobot77 t1_j9n4fg8 wrote
Cyborg times... here we come.
Lord_Aldrich t1_j9nevfa wrote
Most diabetics are already cyborgs - they use a continuous glucose monitor like a dexcom which is linked to an automated insulin injection pump.
[deleted] t1_j9nf9jt wrote
[deleted]
CheGetBarras t1_j9ofj8o wrote
I knew Fakeblock would pay off some day!
Parabola_Cunt t1_j9or9cs wrote
So long Dexcom, so long Abbott’s BGM division.
binaryisotope t1_j9ouqri wrote
Ok. The startup wasn’t “fake” the name is Rockley Photonics and I’m pretty sure this looks like another alivecore situation.
bullsplaytonight t1_j9oynjo wrote
Very interesting that this news comes up a day or so after this:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/21/23608810/apple-watch-alivecor-biden-itc-import-ban
Avia53 t1_j9t4xth wrote
There are about 30 companies working on this technology. I hope to be able to buy one soon.
ballsohaahd t1_j9n2zmj wrote
Fake startup? Weren’t they sued for essentially stealing the startups tech / ideas after not investing?!
youknowmeagain t1_j9n7ndy wrote
According to the article, in this case they formed an outside company, wholly owned by Apple, just to obscure it was Apple working on and testing the technology.
[deleted] t1_j9ouzki wrote
[removed]
binaryisotope t1_j9ovgj4 wrote
Different startup different tech but I think you are right. The one you are referring to is AliveCore, they developed the ECG sensor. The company that worked on Glucose sensors is called Rockley Photonics and they are in no way “fake”.
Willinton06 t1_j9mhw74 wrote
With a single drop of blood…
[deleted] t1_j9mx14j wrote
[deleted]
adarkuccio t1_j9n0jbb wrote
You are pathetic
UglyInThMorning t1_j9m26mk wrote
I was shocked the fake startup wasn’t Theranos, but then I remembered how much of a mess they were. Salvaging anything from them would be a long shot.