Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Report Tempers iWatch Expectations, Device May Have 'Simpler' Technological Capabilities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I disagree. Current glucose monitoring is inconvenient and doesn't tell the whole story. Having a system to give data say every few minutes will lead to better diabetes control. For example, right now my roommate measures his blood sugar once on day on a typical day. He measures it right before breakfast and it is usually within the target range. He then eats and takes a long acting insulin. Well, today he was acting disoriented so I measured his blood sugar. It was on the high side. What is missing is data on a person's sugar level during the day. Sure he used to measure his sugar levels twice a day but they were within reason. Knowing the peaks and valleys of the sugar levels lets the Dr. know if he should be taking a short acting insulin in addition to the long acting insulin. Sure you have the A1C test but that is also a single data point versus measuring how the glucose concentration varies during the day.
It may be considered a medical device if glucose monitoring is added but having a continuous monitor offers a lot of benefits. As a monitor, how much more approval would it need versus the current poke and bleed monitors? The hurdle may be worth it. The iPhone is also a regulated device and Apple jumped into that market with some success.
edit: p.s. I'm not saying that glucose monitoring should be in every iWatch but it would be a great option for those who want it.
I dont think that there is any possible way that an iWatch can adopt iPhone capabilities without linking to a phone. To text and make calls would require a second identical sim card and in the uk, carriers dont issue duplicate sim cards without a hefty charge.
I think people are thinking of this the wrong way, they hear from reports that it's going to be heavily dependent on iPhone and assume it's not going to be a breakthrough piece of technology. The fact is, everything revolves around the smartphone in the post PC era. It's the one indispensable element.
I think, instead of dissuading people because it's not a standalone device, one of its main attractions is going to be how beautifully it integrates and plays off the strengths of the iPhone. The iWatch, or ANY successful wearable, isn't going to break into the mainstream by doing what smartphones do, but with a smaller display. It's going to be a breakthrough biotech device, and that'll be its positioning. Not some BS baby smartphone ala Galaxy Gear.
Actually, glucose monitoring is only good if you are doing it regularly. Having something that is checking on a schedule might detect issues early so that you can take action before things get bad.
The big thing with glucose monitoring is that they can now do it with micro needles that don't require a finger stab.
While you get used to pricking your finger if you are diabetic, it's never pleasant.
If my "watch" could warn me of a problem, or produce a graph showing how my blood sugar changed throughout the day, it could really help me manage my diabetes. Although in my case as long as I take my meds I can kind of eat however I want.
I despise the concept art for the iWatch. I really hope the actual iWatch is nothing like those things that resemble bangles.
![bangles.jpg]()
If blood glucose monitoring is a thing in this, I can guarantee the Mrs. and I are both getting one. Me, because it's an Apple product. Her, because she found out she was an insulin-dependent diabetic the hard way (DKA) at the end of the summer, and is getting real sick of poking her finger several times a day.
That is what Bluetooth and WiFi are for. Think of the iWatch acting more like an iPod Touch rather than a phone. It could use iMessage/Facetime to do those things on WiFi. But pairing it with a phone over bluetooth, it can do much more with access to the Telco networks.
Clearly Apple has already been researching these issues for a long time.
There is a lot of value in all sorts of continuous health monitoring. However, it would require FDA approval and not everyone needs all monitors.
Could they make different versions with different sensors? Could they make it possible to connect different sensors? Maybe they could be added like bangles and would talk to each other with low power BT?
I suspect the first iWatch will be solid but kind of simple and it will grow from there.
There is a lot of value in all sorts of continuous health monitoring. However, it would require FDA approval and not everyone needs all monitors.
Could they make different versions with different sensors? Could they make it possible to connect different sensors? Maybe they could be added like bangles and would talk to each other with low power BT?
I suspect the first iWatch will be solid but kind of simple and it will grow from there.
Yeah but if its constantly paired, its gonna wack the hell out of the battery life for what will be a really small battery
My wish-list for the iWatch:
LARGE square face (okay; rounded corners), high-def bitmapped screen with user configurable watch faces. Provide a simple IDE to provide the ability for users to mix 'n match colors, designs (background, hands) so that the watch looks like whatever the user requires for maximum functionality or high-fashion (colors to coordinate with my suit or shirt, for example).
In this manner, the iWatch may be digital or analog, as required or desired.
Maybe let's have a few alarm features (with SNOOZE capabilities - something that my iPhone can't do with a 3rd-party app - or maybe let the watch connect with a particular calendaring app on my iPhone but the app developer will need to support it I guess).
Problems I see:
1. Price point - No more than $99-$149. If the unit is supposed to support some "iHealth" features, that will require more hardware and the price point & complexity just won't be worth it.
2. Battery life - This is the killer. I'm not going to worry about charging up my iWatch like I have to do my iPhone (although I do have a charging plug in my car for my iPhone so that happens while I drive - I'm not going to plug in my iWatch while I drive).
In short, I give the iWatch a snowball's chance in Hell. Let Tim prove me wrong. Frankly, I think this is an answer searching for a question.
LARGE square face (okay; rounded corners), high-def bitmapped screen with user configurable watch faces. Provide a simple IDE to provide the ability for users to mix 'n match colors, designs (background, hands) so that the watch looks like whatever the user requires for maximum functionality or high-fashion (colors to coordinate with my suit or shirt, for example).
In this manner, the iWatch may be digital or analog, as required or desired.
Maybe let's have a few alarm features (with SNOOZE capabilities - something that my iPhone can't do with a 3rd-party app - or maybe let the watch connect with a particular calendaring app on my iPhone but the app developer will need to support it I guess).
Problems I see:
1. Price point - No more than $99-$149. If the unit is supposed to support some "iHealth" features, that will require more hardware and the price point & complexity just won't be worth it.
2. Battery life - This is the killer. I'm not going to worry about charging up my iWatch like I have to do my iPhone (although I do have a charging plug in my car for my iPhone so that happens while I drive - I'm not going to plug in my iWatch while I drive).
In short, I give the iWatch a snowball's chance in Hell. Let Tim prove me wrong. Frankly, I think this is an answer searching for a question.
my guess is that it will at least be water resistant like my fitbit force, they recommend you don't wear it in the shower, though I've forgotten and kept it on and its been alright. if you can't splash a bit of water on it they might as well not put anything out.
Did you say the same thing about the Galaxy Gear, which was getting ripped for only supporting the Note 3 and S4?
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have much interest in a wearable device that requires me to carry a second device in order to function.
Unfortunatelly, there is currently no reliable technology to measure glucose levels noninvasively. I do not believe Apple has found a way - that would be a breakthrough far too outside their current area of expertise, and its use as a medical tool would have required medical article publications about the subject before the first iWatch arrives at consumers.
Eventually I think the iWatch will take the place of the iPhone as the main on you all the time personal computer.
Before the iPhone, nobody could imagine a phone replacing a laptop. The screen was too small for the "whole" internet. But the iPhone UI was designed specifically for the small screen, not trying to force large screen UI (i.e. cursor based) into a small screen.
Similarly, a UI designed specifically for a band screen could do the same. Ask Siri a question and she gives you an answer, not search results for pages where you might find that answer.
Use cases that require larger screens can be resolved with ubiquitous AirPlay enabled devices or by having iPads slot down to fill that niche. Think easy to use second screen experiences. Use any screen around you to view photos or movies via AirPlay.
The first iWatch will be an accessory but as technology allows, it'll become ever more independent just as the iPhone has released its reliance on iTunes and a Mac/PC.
If it did have the biometric capabilities that you listed it would be revolutionary for diabetics, those with hypertension, etc. Add in the fitness monitoring and I'm all over it.
It's 2014 not 1999. Wake up for Gods sake. Analogue - think outside the box, an iWatch can be more than a "watch" - use a little imagination.
I would surprised if the iWatch wasn't inherently linked to the iPhone in some way such that the two devices were intended to be used together. The iWatch collects the data and presents it to the iPhone by way of a series of API's for developers to build back end apps to display the data.
Apple is all about building enabling technologies with the developers bringing the value added through their apps.
Apple is all about building enabling technologies with the developers bringing the value added through their apps.
Do you have any idea how big of a deal non invasive glucose monitoring would be to diabetics? There are over 25 million diabetics in the US and over 350 million worldwide.
Are you trying to tell me it won't let me time-travel?!
No, but when paired with a supercomputer named Tim, it will allow you to "jaunt" to distant places, rather than the short jaunts you can do on your own.
Just keep an eye out for Jedekiah.
