Apple CEO Tim Cook Spotted Testing Apple Watch-Connected Glucose Monitor

[honglong1976]

Apple's is more accurate, so there is that... And it can increase sampling on demand (usually during exercise, but it could undoubtably do it in response to "weird" readings.

I have a Blaze and Apple Watch and both are fairly accurate to be honest until you start getting the things sweaty. Detecting a heart attack while resting would be possible but during a marathon, forget it!

 

[Jim Lahey]

This really is a big deal (if accurate). I'm diabetic and the idea of my Apple Watch being able to monitor my blood glucose fills me with happiness. Pricking fingers, whilst not exactly painful, quickly becomes a tiresome chore. Just carrying around the necessary equipment is boring, not to mention staying stocked up on strips and lancets.

I do not, however, recommend that non-diabetics monitor their BG. I believe everyone should educate themselves, but a non-diabetic who starts monitoring BG will quickly become a paranoid mess!

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

This would be great by do you remember Theranos?

So, you're comparing Apple to a bunch of Scammers?
[doublepost=1495243806][/doublepost]

that much was clear regardless. This will require FDA approval which is a lengthy process. Apple won't want to tie Apple Watch release schedule to that. They'll offload this functionality to a watch band. whenever it's ready and approved they'll release it and it will most likely work even with the current generation Watch.

It's non-invasive. Therefore, it might skate by as a Class 4 GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) Device. Those approvals only take a few months.
[doublepost=1495244570][/doublepost]

So Apple's next big thing is to connect to someone else's innovation.

These health things are great, but hopefully companies like Apple don't hold consumers ransom by creating exclusive partnerships with companies like this to prevent their products from reporting health data to competitors devices. It would be a real shame in the future if the only health people are people that can afford $5000 worth of Apple hardware.

The Apple Watch starts at $249.

That's a cool $4,751 below your claim. Where's the rest?
[doublepost=1495244916][/doublepost]

I was excited to read about new Apple products from Cook that aren't just watch bands.
But it was a delusion and ended up being just a new watch band.

Yeah.

A new watch band that just happens to hold the promise of a significant REAL improvement in the lives of millions of diabetics that today are supposed to:

STAB THEMSELVES WITH A NEEDLE up to THREE TIMES A DAY.

Try it sometime. You'll change your tune PRONTO, unless you're a masochist.
[doublepost=1495245053][/doublepost]

It's definitely exciting stuff. But I will never ever wear a square shaped watch. Never liked it before smart watches, and will never like it after. Give us something along the lines of the Moto 360 without the flat tire and you can take my money then. Thought Apple was all about elegance in design... But they missed the mark on this one. Cue all the haters who say Apple doesn't need my one sale....

Round displays are ridiculous.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

This is all typical ad-man's strategy of "create the fear-supply the solution." And typical of the gullibility of contemporary societies with nothing worse to worry about. Watches are for telling the time, phones are for phone calls, computers, (remember Apple ?) are for work. Apple makes me feel lied to, manipulated and dissed.

OH, PUH-LEASE!!!
[doublepost=1495264252][/doublepost]

This is an important point. Nowhere in the article was it claimed that the glucose monitor seen being tested by Cook was developed by Apple. Also never said was that it didn't depend on a subdural probe. Since third-party glucose monitors using subdural probes with connectivity to phones are already available, and we already know Apple's interest in medical device connectivity, this story doesn't appear to contain any actual news.

Which part of "Non-invasive" didn't you understand?

 

[scrumpyjack]

This breakthrough will translate in hundreds of millions of Watches (and iPhones) sold.

Everyone else will be doing it by then too. I'm sure there are numerous start ups in the valley that can already do stuff way more advanced than this.

 

[kdarling]

Which part of "Non-invasive" didn't you understand?

You're talking about the desire, not the current reality.

IJ Reilly is correct. Nowhere in the CNBC source was it specifically stated that Cook had been publicly testing an Apple-made prototype sensor, nor that the monitor he himself talked about wearing had been a non-invasive one.

Apparently many websites mashed together Cook's comments about wearing a glucose monitor for a while, along with previous reports of Apple working on non-invasive methods, and rumors of feasability trials, and decided on their own that Apple had made a breakthrough.

Think about it: researchers everywhere have been working on such a device for decades. Finally creating one that worked would be huge news (and frankly, a bit sad if done by a greedy non-licensing company like Apple, but great for their stock).

Cook doesn't even show off by visibly carrying iPhone prototypes. So why would he publicly wear or talk about any Apple sensor protoype that would arguably be far more important? The idea makes no sense.

 

[ebresie]

As a diabetic myself I think this would be of great help. One of my reluctance of the current continuous monitoring as was mentioned is the need to have the sensor injected under the skin and remains for a while which can be a little but if an issue due to irritation and possible infections.

If this monitoring could be done by wearing and not injecting I would be one of the first to sign up for one.

Assume if it was external then it could open up for use with no iOS devices as well but not sure if Apple would want to take it that direction or not.

 

[Gameboy70]

So, you're comparing Apple to a bunch of Scammers?
[doublepost=1495243806][/doublepost]
Unlike some overzealous blogs, Apple has scrupulously avoided mentioning any CGM work in progress to the public. That said, I see a few parallels to Theranos in the way these stories about non-invasive CGM functionality are being received. Before WSJ's onslaught of exposés last year, critics of Theranos were outliers. Doctors and physiologists who questioned the possibility of testing for dozens of biomarkers in a single drop of blood were dismissed as cynics. Tech bros regularly championed Theranos' far-fetched claims with barely understood buzzwords like "microfluidics", sharing biochem dropout Elizabeth Holmes' naivette.

I consider wrist worn non-invasive CGM the new Edison Machine—historically significant if it happens and works as advertised, but highly unlikely.

 

[mugtastic]

So, you're comparing Apple to a bunch of Scammers?
[doublepost=1495243806][/doublepost]
It's non-invasive. Therefore, it might skate by as a Class 4 GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) Device. Those approvals only take a few months.
[doublepost=1495244570][/doublepost]
The Apple Watch starts at $249.

That's a cool $4,751 below your claim. Where's the rest?
[doublepost=1495244916][/doublepost]
Yeah.

A new watch band that just happens to hold the promise of a significant REAL improvement in the lives of millions of diabetics that today are supposed to:

STAB THEMSELVES WITH A NEEDLE up to THREE TIMES A DAY.

Try it sometime. You'll change your tune PRONTO, unless you're a masochist.
[doublepost=1495245053][/doublepost]
Round displays are ridiculous.

try 6+ times a day - and even then, lots of uncertainty and surprises - it's more difficult, expensive and frustrating the harder you work at better management.
[doublepost=1495306259][/doublepost]

You're talking about the desire, not the current reality.

IJ Reilly is correct. Nowhere in the CNBC source was it specifically stated that Cook had been publicly testing an Apple-made prototype sensor, nor that the monitor he himself talked about wearing had been a non-invasive one.

Apparently many websites mashed together Cook's comments about wearing a glucose monitor for a while, along with previous reports of Apple working on non-invasive methods, and rumors of feasability trials, and decided on their own that Apple had made a breakthrough.

Think about it: researchers everywhere have been working on such a device for decades. Finally creating one that worked would be huge news (and frankly, a bit sad if done by a greedy non-licensing company like Apple, but great for their stock).

Cook doesn't even show off by visibly carrying iPhone prototypes. So why would he publicly wear or talk about any Apple sensor protoype that would arguably be far more important? The idea makes no sense.

this ^^
i think the article merges the fact that apple has a team working on this and the fact that cook has seen value in the idea by wearing a subcutaneous monitor for a few weeks. i hope i'm wrong. this would be one of the biggest scientific/medical advancements since the discovery of insulin and there is currently a lot of money being made selling glucose test strips, so an actual working prototype would not fly under the radar for long.

for those that think non-diabetics shouldn't monitor their blood sugar, if they eat refined carbohydrates much they may benefit from a window into the effects of one of the most impactful substances humans add to their system.

of course if you have experience with diabetes, "watching" a normally functioning system regulate blood sugar automatically and effectively would be seeing a calming miracle of health. though many healthy people, i'm sure, will eat a cupcake and freak over the next hour as the body reacts to the purity of the drug they have administered.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Which part of "Non-invasive" didn't you understand?

Reading for content... which part of "non-invasive" was suggested by the article, as far as what Cook was seen wearing?
[doublepost=1495325804][/doublepost]

You're talking about the desire, not the current reality.

IJ Reilly is correct. Nowhere in the CNBC source was it specifically stated that Cook had been publicly testing an Apple-made prototype sensor, nor that the monitor he himself talked about wearing had been a non-invasive one.

Apparently many websites mashed together Cook's comments about wearing a glucose monitor for a while, along with previous reports of Apple working on non-invasive methods, and rumors of feasability trials, and decided on their own that Apple had made a breakthrough.

Think about it: researchers everywhere have been working on such a device for decades. Finally creating one that worked would be huge news (and frankly, a bit sad if done by a greedy non-licensing company like Apple, but great for their stock).

Cook doesn't even show off by visibly carrying iPhone prototypes. So why would he publicly wear or talk about any Apple sensor protoype that would arguably be far more important? The idea makes no sense.

Yes, this exactly. Thank you. MR needs to create a separate category of articles that don't even qualify as rumors. Baseless Speculation is my suggestion. Put the "Apple Car" in there too.

 

[Abazigal]

http://www.healthline.com/health/diabetesmine/innovation/open-letter-steve-jobs

If insulin pumps or continuous monitors had the form of an iPod Nano, people wouldn't have to wonder why we wear our "pagers" to our own weddings, or puzzle over that strange bulge under our clothes. If these devices wouldn't start suddenly and incessantly beeping, strangers wouldn't lecture us to turn off our "cell phones" at the movie theater.

In short, medical device manufacturers are stuck in a bygone era; they continue to design these products in an engineering-driven, physician-centered bubble. They have not yet grasped the concept that medical devices are also life devices, and therefore need to feel good and look good for the patients using them 24/7, in addition to keeping us alive.

Clearly, we need a visionary to champion this disconnect. We need an organization on the cutting edge of consumer design to get vocal about this issue. Ideally, we need a "gadget guru" like Jonathan Ive to show the medical device industry what is possible.

Something Apple is well-positioned to disrupt, given their penchant for making products which both look great and work great.

 

[AccenT]

It would be wonderful if one day it could also reliably detect heart problems before a heart attack.

Yeah, the imminence of a heart attack will never be detected by a watch. You could go and have a doctor check-up once in a while and he'll predict if you'll have a heart attack.
The whole glucose thing is much more basic, but they couldn't get the heart rate right, I doubt they'll do it right this time. The watch is more of a toy than a medical device. They're just trying to show it has some functions, because right now it's pretty much useless.

 

[imgroovy]

What kind of arm band is that?

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Think about it: researchers everywhere have been working on such a device for decades. Finally creating one that worked would be huge news (and frankly, a bit sad if done by a greedy non-licensing company like Apple, but great for their stock).

But not a bit "sad" if done by a greedy, non-licensing company like $BIG_PHARMA$, right?

Watch out, your Hater is showing...

 

[StyxMaker]

Buy stock in pharma when these hit the market. 80% of all type 2 diabetes cases are undiagnosed.

Why would people who have not been diagnosed as type 2 diabetics spend $200+ dollars on a watch band that will allow them to monitor their blood glucose level?

 

[StyxMaker]

Wowzers. I'm informing your life insurance company

It's all in the dosage. How much of each is he consuming?

 

[kdarling]

But not a bit "sad" if done by a greedy, non-licensing company like $BIG_PHARMA$, right?.

Those are your words alone.

I'd prefer it was invented by someone who would license it to anyone.

Watch out, your Hater is showing...

I'm not the one making up non-existent quotes, or attacking others over something you misread. The least you could do is man up and apologize to Reilly.