Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't have the articles from 2018 but there were numerous reports that the Apple Watch (and others) were inaccurate for heart rates. I can tell you from experience that numerous Fitbits are terrible at counting steps (which is why I bought it in the first place back in 2016) and that's their sole function.

Again, I welcome and dream of a day when such a medical device can be used, is trusted, and is accurate. We are still in the beginning stages of such technology. But accuracy is critical. Responsibility is even more critical. All of the numerous devices found in hospitals are vehemently designed, tested, and repeatedly tested and maintained to ensure accuracy. When those devices fail and a lawsuit comes, it's never the hospital that is liable...it's the manufacturer. This liability needs to apply to said Apple Watch-type devices in the future. Apple can't simply shrug their shoulders and say "well, I guess the Watch didn't work that well that day...but our TOU says we can't be held liable" if the Watch fails to work as promised for medical usage.

Surely there's a difference in usage. Apple's devices are specifically for personal information rather than for use by medical practitioners. I don't see a doctor/hospital using an Apple Watch for accurate diagnosis (especially in the USA), but I can see it alerting them to a possible problem that can then be checked (or enable them to focus resources away from unlikely issues). While improved accuracy is always good, there's a lot of benefit in broadening access to diagnostic healthcare devices as long as the user is aware of the limitations. Early detection and seeking medical attention can be critical.

In my home, I have many cheap DIY devices to test for damp, detect electrical circuits, measure temperatures remotely, test electrical continuity, check for water leaks, etc. as well as checking my heart rate when exercising etc. They certainly aren't good enough for professional use, but they do help me detect and correct problems before I need the professionals, tell me that I need to call someone in before the problem becomes too serious, or enable me to monitor ongoing issues. Most of them have similar caveats to the Apple Watch.
 
Yeah then make a f!@#$% effort to get the ECG function available outside of the United States.

In Canada, as of early December 2018, Apple didn't even bother applying for approval with Health Canada, 2 months after the S4 went on sale.

Did you check what you say? Pls. ref.!
 
I hope they will contribute to health because Apple is seriously currently contributing to severe health deterioration but producing devices which makes people SIT more and move less and bend the neck over a tiny display which ruin the eyes and body posture...

Look at how folks are hunch backing over their devices ALL THE TIME... That in long run is going to become a huge problem. Which of course does not apply only to apple...
 
I am starting to find Tim very entertaining. AW will be a great contribution in health? I guess Tim is not aware there are many fast food chains, readily available junk food, all-you-can-eat lunch and dinner buffets and the average American obesity is increasing. Just look at the retail stores and you can see how lazy people have become where they can't put the merchandise back where they belong after deciding they no longer want to make the purchase (Sorry but I had to get this off my chest.). The biggest money maker is in pharmaceutical which I am surprise to see Apple is not heading in that direction.

If they were really bothered about improving people's health, they could make the watch cheaper and allow it to work with Android. That's not going to happen.
 
Garmin will disagree. They've been making products with proactive features that benefit consumers by making them healthy. Apple, on the other hand, are focusing more on reactive feature with questionable high level of false positives that will help line the pockets of the medical industry.
 
Debt has an ultimately negative effect on health. There's no way Apple could ever overcome the negative effects of the pricing of its products through the production of more products, not even ones that monitor health. Apple's ultimate "contribution" to mankind is the transfer of wealth from people who earn their livelihood with labor to those who earn their livelihood with capital, and I'm not so sure that's a "contribution". They should stick to accepting accolades for creating things that are impressive and interesting and productive, and not try to attach moral significance to what they do, as on balance they are not "contributing" there.
 
Last edited:
Honestly it’s the one thing I don’t really care about...

I don’t use the health app. Don’t use an Apple Watch.

I’m at a perfect height and weight and rather not have the tech companies dabble into my Heath Care etc.

They already have enough of my data
Yeah because being perfect height and weight there is no chance of cardiovascular issues.
[doublepost=1547064286][/doublepost]
Honestly it’s the one thing I don’t really care about...

I don’t use the health app. Don’t use an Apple Watch.

I’m at a perfect height and weight and rather not have the tech companies dabble into my Heath Care etc.

They already have enough of my data
Yeah because being perfect height and weight there is no chance of cardiovascular issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iapplelove
Garmin will disagree. They've been making products with proactive features that benefit consumers by making them healthy. Apple, on the other hand, are focusing more on reactive feature with questionable high level of false positives that will help line the pockets of the medical industry.
In other words, Garmin doesn’t have any of the functionality of apple and never will because they (garmin)!compete with Fitbit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mars56
Garmin will disagree. They've been making products with proactive features that benefit consumers by making them healthy. Apple, on the other hand, are focusing more on reactive feature with questionable high level of false positives that will help line the pockets of the medical industry.

Who could have foreseen you being negative about almost everything Apple does?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mars56
Yeah, I'll go out and buy a $399 Apple Watch the same day I buy a $350 smart speaker. :/

Apple's revenue projections are lowered...
[doublepost=1547066713][/doublepost]
With the way MacRumors readers are, they’d find a way to hate on Cook even if he announced a cure for cancer. Probably by saying he should focus on the Mac.

This is on "Mac Rumors" or "Cancer Rumors"?
 
Yeah, I'll go out and buy a $399 Apple Watch the same day I buy a $350 smart speaker. :/

Apple's revenue projections are lowered...
[doublepost=1547066713][/doublepost]

This is on "Mac Rumors" or "Cancer Rumors"?

And the point flew so far over your head that its wings melted.
 
Eat healthy, exercise. There, I beat Tim to it! I think AAPL is tracking and alerting on symptoms, not causes. Therefore, the health benefits will be reactionary.
 
If they were really bothered about improving people's health, they could make the watch cheaper and allow it to work with Android. That's not going to happen.
I agree with you, they should lower the price. Can you imagine wearing the AW and see your heart rate spike when they announce new products along with a price increase .
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
I agree with you, they should lower the price. Can you imagine wearing the AW and see your heart rate spike when they announce new products along with a price increase .

It also would be nice if they made the Apple Watch more standalone / toned down. Imagine a value Apple "Watch" (or fitness tracker) that tracks your health and has an iPod shuffle feature in it. It doesn't have GPS, text message checking, or any of the extra phone features that adds to cost.

I'd be first in line to buy that one possibly, although I don't think Apple is trying to compete the Watch against companies like Garmin's budget line though.
 
It also would be nice if they made the Apple Watch more standalone / toned down. Imagine a value Apple "Watch" (or fitness tracker) that tracks your health and has an iPod shuffle feature in it. It doesn't have GPS, text message checking, or any of the extra phone features that adds to cost.

I'd be first in line to buy that one possibly, although I don't think Apple is trying to compete the Watch against companies like Garmin's budget line though.
I like the ideas you've mentioned and is more practical. Listening to music thru AW is way more convenient than having to carry something such as an iPod or iPhone.
 
I'd rather my Apple products don't contribute to or connect with that 'other' advertising and data collection platform that masquerades as a phone OS.
[doublepost=1547001374][/doublepost]
.

Your Apple products?

So wouldn't want other people's Apple watch to work with Android to protect your data? Then just stick with the Apple ecosystem and you can believe your data is protected! I think people should be given the choice, just like how SIRI sucks and Google now wins hands down.

The main problem with Apple Watch is you can't use most of its communication features with most people because the Apple watch isn't that popular around the world, and Android is BY far the most used OS in the word. That's just a fact.

I think Apple Watch is great and it would dominate considerably more if it was compatible with Android. But by restricting it only to iOS, you have limited customers, limited usage, and utility goes down with a smaller user base.
 
The health aspect of Apple Watch has huge potential if more sensors are added. I was surprised they went for the 10k a watch angle first.

Problem is that Apple only works with iOS, a true gift to mankind would be to all operating system, not just a gift to mankind if you buy into the eco system.

How are you supposed to optimize for a system when you can't control your own hardware and it's underlying software?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandomDSdevel
Yeah then make a f!@#$% effort to get the ECG function available outside of the United States.

In Canada, as of early December 2018, Apple didn't even bother applying for approval with Health Canada, 2 months after the S4 went on sale.
Canada is even more of a regulatory mess than we are.
[doublepost=1547075773][/doublepost]
If Apple really wants to get into health/healthcare, they should buy a pharma/biotech/healthcare equipment company.

Called the company/division "An Apple A Day"
I’m certain there is a test product with that name somewhere in Cupertino.
 
How are you supposed to optimize for a system when you can't control your own hardware and it's underlying software?

Course they control the hardware and software! And you are saying that it would be impossible! So every other developer can make cross plateform software, but Apple can’t???
 
  • Like
Reactions: ipponrg
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.