Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Hires Chief Medical Officer From Pulse Oximetry Company Masimo, Possibly for iWatch Team

More fuel to....

the argument about Apple, if currently prototyping/making a smart watch, looks to differentiate itself with a wide set of features over the current offers. Seems like the pre-iPod market with the Nomad players......:D

:):apple:
 
I'm still totally unsold on the idea of carrying around a mobile medical station. I'm not a professional athlete; I don't need real-time statistics on what every organ in my body is doing, how much energy I'm using, etc.

The Tarahumara people can run 200 mile-stretches over a couple of days, and AFAIK they don't use fitbits, Nike smart watches, iWatches or anything else. They drink beer and eat beans and squirrels.

Not just their young people, either - even the middle-aged and elderly can run enormous distances.

Point is: teching yourself up doesn't make you healthier or fitter. Some of the most primitive people on the planet could put our best olympic athletes to shame.

That said, of course, I said I'm not sold on the idea. Maybe Apple will convince me, but if this really is a "health" statistics device, then no thanks.
 
If they can do accurate, non invasive glucose monitoring that will be HUGE. Every diabetic will want to own one. And diabetes is growing at an alarming rate, especially in the US.
 
AppleScruff1 said:
If they can do accurate, non invasive glucose monitoring that will be HUGE. Every diabetic will want to own one. And diabetes is growing at an alarming rate, especially in the US.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, the Baby Boomers are hitting retirement age. Anything to do with health care is a potential winner.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Not to mention, the Baby Boomers are hitting retirement age. Anything to do with health care is a potential winner.
Click to expand...

I think that health monitoring has the potential to be a real winner too, but I know a lot of diabetics that would kill to have instant, non invasive glucose monitoring. That would be huge and game changing.
 
AppleScruff1 said:
I think that health monitoring has the potential to be a real winner too, but I know a lot of diabetics that would kill to have instant, non invasive glucose monitoring. That would be huge and game changing.
Click to expand...

Is non-invasive glucose testing even possible today?

Monitoring is an increasingly large part of health care and will only become more important as the population ages. I think the trick to marketing a personal health monitoring device (especially to aging Baby Boomers) is not make everyone who uses one look like a hypochondriac. It would have to do a lot of other things, or it's going to be labeled the iSick, something only the elderly and infirm own. Whatever Apple does in this market, it is going to be interesting to see how it is marketed and received.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Is non-invasive glucose testing even possible today?

Monitoring is an increasingly large part of health care and will only become more important as the population ages. I think the trick to marketing a personal health monitoring device (especially to aging Baby Boomers) is not make everyone who uses one look like a hypochondriac. It would have to do a lot of other things, or it's going to be labeled the iSick, something only the elderly and infirm own. Whatever Apple does in this market, it is going to be interesting to see how it is marketed and received.
Click to expand...

I don't think non invasive glucose monitoring is possible yet, but one of Apple's new hires is specializing in that according to the article and it was brought up as a possibility a few month ago as some European? company was working on it.

I figure that whatever it does will have to be something with mass appeal. Apple will be looking to sell tens of millions of them, IMO and not a niche market.
 
Many if not all medical complications which are detected at advanced stage when body is beyond repair , can be avoided/controlled if symptoms are identified at early stage of development. If Apple iWatch project gives vital data at regular basis and alarms if body stats are out of normal range, that would be great help for humanity.


Having said that its our responsibility to maintain balance between health and hectic lifestyle.
 
Last edited:
AppleScruff1 said:
I don't think non invasive glucose monitoring is possible yet, but one of Apple's new hires is specializing in that according to the article and it was brought up as a possibility a few month ago as some European? company was working on it.

I figure that whatever it does will have to be something with mass appeal. Apple will be looking to sell tens of millions of them, IMO and not a niche market.
Click to expand...

I work for a Glucose Monitoring Company: Exacsys. Non-invasive is not yet developed enough to deliver the accuracy required by the FDA and the EMA. In addition, the only feasible non-invasive solutions are based on eye-measurement. There was already a watch a few years ago, but it was slammed for low accuracy.

There are some less-invasive examples in development based on the measurement of interstitial fluid, but these are also still not accurate.

A glucose monitoring watch will mean for Apple that they need to go through a regulatory process at the FDA and EMA, and that takes at least 6 months for medical devices. This also requires clinical testing.

AppleScruff1 said:
If they can do accurate, non invasive glucose monitoring that will be HUGE. Every diabetic will want to own one. And diabetes is growing at an alarming rate, especially in the US.
Click to expand...

Actually the US is the second slowest growing region behind Europe. The fastest is Africa, followed by the Middle East and China.
 
This is the right direction. It has to do things that the smartphone can't do. I don't need some crap watch that shows me my notifications or take pictures.
 
With all the current "tech" to DIY at home, nothing can beat going to the doctor ....

Good little device, for those in the tech industry, but i won't guess most would still prefer the doc one on one...


No tech will match that.

People just enjoy the experience, why would you wanna buy something when all you need to do is a trip and you can get test in same day or so ?

Sometimes the old style going outside instead of being lazy is the best.
 
Tech198 said:
With all the current "tech" to DIY at home, nothing can beat going to the doctor ....

Good little device, for those in the tech industry, but i won't guess most would still prefer the doc one on one...
Click to expand...

No disrespect intended, but you must be unaware of the global Point of Care diagnostics industry, which has a global volume of about USD 20 Billion yearly.

Point of Care diagnostics such as glucose monitoring are incredibly important in healthcare both in terms of avoiding complications (and deaths) but also in lowering the need to visit the doctor (not everyone has the means to do so, think of large distances etc.).

This is not a superfluous tech-gadget functionality but something that has saved millions of lifes and will continue to do so.
 
The it must be an aussie thing...

We're out of touch on the 'latest & greatest' unlike in the U.S or other parts.
 
springsup said:
I'm still totally unsold on the idea of carrying around a mobile medical station. I'm not a professional athlete; I don't need real-time statistics on what every organ in my body is doing, how much energy I'm using, etc.

The Tarahumara people can run 200 mile-stretches over a couple of days, and AFAIK they don't use fitbits, Nike smart watches, iWatches or anything else. They drink beer and eat beans and squirrels.

Not just their young people, either - even the middle-aged and elderly can run enormous distances.

Point is: teching yourself up doesn't make you healthier or fitter. Some of the most primitive people on the planet could put our best olympic athletes to shame.


That said, of course, I said I'm not sold on the idea. Maybe Apple will convince me, but if this really is a "health" statistics device, then no thanks.
Click to expand...

You know that even couch potatoes will buy this iWatch. Even if it is to just see how many calories they burn reaching for the potato chips.

And the accompanying app

iWatch-what-I-eat

may help them in the end to become active.
 
iBug2 said:
If there's a way to get pulse ox through the arm skin, I'm in. But as far as I know the only pulse ox you can get through direct skin is the earlobe because the skin is way too thin there.

If they figure out a way to get your pulse ox while you are walking, jogging, through this watch thingy, that'll be amazing for fitness. LG showed off some earphones that gets your pulse ox from the ear.
Click to expand...

Are those LG headphones a pulse oximeter, or just a heart rate monitor? I thought they were just the usual heart rate monitor, but used headphones rather than a chest strap. Maybe I'm thinking of a different company's product.

Also, regular pulse oximeters use a finger clamp and don't involve the ear. Am I misunderstanding what you wrote?

----------
springsup said:
Point is: teching yourself up doesn't make you healthier or fitter. Some of the most primitive people on the planet could put our best olympic athletes to shame.
Click to expand...

Very true. But studies have shown that wearing a pedometer or one of the newer devices like a FitBit tends to increase the average person's daily activity levels by about 20-25%. I'm sure that there is a fall-off back to normal for most people, after the novelty wears off, however.

I agree with the spirit of your post, though. I exercise every day, and used to take my iPhone along with me on my morning runs so I could use the Nike+ app. The extremely cold weather, however, coupled with the GPS, ended up draining my fully-charged battery half-way through my run. Now I just leave it at home. I have several courses I run, and I know the distance of each of them. I just put on my running shoes, get my dog, and we head out. It feels much more liberating not having to deal with a phone or an app.

That said, if a company comes out with a rock-solid activity tracker that can accurately track multiple activities (mainly, running, mountain biking, and swimming) and doesn't look like complete crap, then I'll probably buy one. Because no matter how liberating it is to just go for a run without any gadgets, I also have to admit that I love having a big pool of my training data to delve into. :)
 
peterdevries said:
A glucose monitoring watch will mean for Apple that they need to go through a regulatory process at the FDA and EMA, and that takes at least 6 months for medical devices. This also requires clinical testing.
Click to expand...

If it was to be used for medical purposes? I wonder if all those body monitors you can buy today were certified by the FDA and received clinical testing. I suspect they come with broad disclaimers.
 
Wish this pulse/Ox monitor had been available when we were trying to take care of my mom on a respirator at home. Damn insurance at the time wouldn't pay to have a basic oximeter and they were too expensive for us to buy on our own. I think my mom would have been less anxious if she knew she was always getting enough oxygen.

P.S. The normal pulse oximeters in the hospital are finger clamps.
 
IJ Reilly said:
If it was to be used for medical purposes? I wonder if all those body monitors you can buy today were certified by the FDA and received clinical testing. I suspect they come with broad disclaimers.
Click to expand...

All monitors that are intended for self diagnosis and self management of diseases such as blood pressure meters, glucose meters etc need to be certified. Heart rate monitors do not fall under this category, unless they are specifically prescribed by a doctor.

You raise an important issue. It is for example not possible to release a glucose meter for "recreational" purposes as the average patient would not be able to distinguish between that and could potentially rely on a less accurate device. The producer of such a device would likely be liable if the patient makes a wrong decision based on a less accurate measurement.
 
springsup said:
Point is: teching yourself up doesn't make you healthier or fitter. Some of the most primitive people on the planet could put our best olympic athletes to shame.
Click to expand...

Really? So these primitive runners in Mexico are such great distance runners that they dominate the races outside of their native area? You might want to read some of Scott Jurek's experiences with them, yes they are talented, but they are far from great when competing outside of their region (Jurek faults their lack of skill when running down hills and culture norms). Yes they are talented and fast, but so are many of todays athletes that base their training with current technology, who judging from Ultra's in the last year are better overall athletes than the Tarahumara.
 
FreeState said:
Really? So these primitive runners in Mexico are such great distance runners that they dominate the races outside of their native area? You might want to read some of Scott Jurek's experiences with them, yes they are talented, but they are far from great when competing outside of their region (Jurek faults their lack of skill when running down hills and culture norms). Yes they are talented and fast, but so are many of todays athletes that base their training with current technology, who judging from Ultra's in the last year are better overall athletes than the Tarahumara.
Click to expand...

My point is that it's ordinary Tarahumara who can do this kind of thing. I wouldn't compare them to Ultras who devote their life to testing the athletic limits of their bodies.

The general population has no business constantly monitoring the intricate workings of their bodies. It's kind of like using Windows - when I did, I spent all my time tweaking how the machine worked, instead of just using it. When I switched to a Mac, there wasn't really much under-the-hood that needed tweaking, and now I don't even care how most of it works.

Basically - who cares how many calories you're burning? If you think you should be more active, be more active! Throwing data at people is not the way to go.
 
peterdevries said:
I work for a Glucose Monitoring Company: Exacsys. Non-invasive is not yet developed enough to deliver the accuracy required by the FDA and the EMA. In addition, the only feasible non-invasive solutions are based on eye-measurement. There was already a watch a few years ago, but it was slammed for low accuracy.

There are some less-invasive examples in development based on the measurement of interstitial fluid, but these are also still not accurate.

A glucose monitoring watch will mean for Apple that they need to go through a regulatory process at the FDA and EMA, and that takes at least 6 months for medical devices. This also requires clinical testing.



Actually the US is the second slowest growing region behind Europe. The fastest is Africa, followed by the Middle East and China.
Click to expand...

Any guess on how long before non invasive glucose monitoring is ready?
 
springsup said:
My point is that it's ordinary Tarahumara who can do this kind of thing. I wouldn't compare them to Ultras who devote their life to testing the athletic limits of their bodies.

The general population has no business constantly monitoring the intricate workings of their bodies. It's kind of like using Windows - when I did, I spent all my time tweaking how the machine worked, instead of just using it. When I switched to a Mac, there wasn't really much under-the-hood that needed tweaking, and now I don't even care how most of it works.

Basically - who cares how many calories you're burning? If you think you should be more active, be more active! Throwing data at people is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

While I get what your saying, I totally disagree. Comparing the Tarahumara to pros or amateurs is not helpful, they are not professional athletes and their goals of running are not the same as amateur runners - who dominate the field of Ultras by the way - the prize money on these races alone would not enable an individual to live off the winnings.

Technology does help amateurs, especially in the sport of running. There is a reason that sports watches are popular among amateur runners - because they help in the training process. A person who just jogs on the weekends or runs a race with the main goal of just completing the distance likely would not gain much from current technology aimed at distance runners - but it might encourage them to try harder.

If your an amateur distance runner, meaning when you race you are not trying to go a specific distance, you are trying to beat your current best time, knowing how many calories you have consumed, the breakdown of the micros, the calories you burned for the day etc., can effect the outcome of your training. Just gaining a few pounds can add 10-15 minutes to your time. Not knowing if your are running your threshold training runs at the right speed because you don't know your true max hear rate is another example of where you would also under/over train. There are more examples but hopefully you get the idea.

I use a heart rate monitor, a Withings Pulse, Withing Scale (does resting heart rate, body composition etc), I track my calories and map all my runs. The great thing about modern technology is how simple it is, I spend less than two minutes a day looking at it, its all there automatically for me. My weight, heart rate, etc are all automatically pushed to my calendar where in a simple glance I can see if I'm on target. It's nothing like using a Windows machine and tinkering with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back