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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments