No, Ive was obsessed with giving the engineers impossibly small packages to fit things into. The engineers know what the goal is.
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.
Apple's Health VP Talks Glucose Monitoring on Apple Watch Amid Rumors of Noninvasive Tracking Breakthrough
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am a diabetic. The watch would be for me to keep track of how I am during the day as I only need to test once a day thus far.
I will be holding off buying a new iWatch until this feature comes along..... or someone beats Apple to it
In order to obtain FDA approval, the device must achieve a satisfactory level of accuracy, as frequent incorrect readings could have serious consequences and put lives at risk. However, achieving accuracy can be challenging with spectroscopy in an open environment like a wristwatch, where there is a myriad of factors that can affect the accuracy of the readings. Most likely the first few iterations will only be able to take manual readings where users have to be at rest and not under direct sunlight.
I assume this will be a really long public beta and more like the heart rhythm features. While not fully functional for diagnosis and treatment, it may alert people who thought they were otherwise healthy to get more tests or to let the presently sick know if their efforts are improving their condition.
I'm sure if it's actually viable for the market, the big boys (Bayer, Medtronics, Abbott, etc) would've already made theirs as a non-invasive device would be a huge money maker. It would've been a huge breakthrough in medical community. Yet we don't see them yet.
So for now thinking that Apple somehow magically able to do one is quite farfetched.
From that article, in regards to optical/microwave methods:
I’m not saying there’s no research being done. The idea of noninvasive method have been researched upon for decades, even before the Apple Watch existing. Like I said, if we were at commercial viability, it would be a huge breakthrough that all the big boys in the field (Bayer, Abbott, Medtronics, etc) would already jump on it and make a ton of money.
We are still far from making that into reality. Throwing in Apple money won’t turn science into magic.
Apple has never been first party mover. All those current fancy sensors on the Apple Watch are nothing new, they already existed in other devices, etc. Apple’s winning formula is combining/integrating existing technologies into their Apple ecosystem presented with fancy and user pleasing UI. Add on marketing dust, and it is seemingly magical.
Real research on non-invasive methods are being worked on. But we would see the tech being used in professional specialty medical devices first, then consumer standalone once the price goes down, and once miniaturization and cost efficiency have been optimized, then Apple will come in and do their usual thing.
No magic is necessary. It just takes one highly motivated/curious/imaginative/determined Apple scientist/engineer (or team) thinking outside the box.
I'm optimistic and looking forward to seeing how your comments/position ages over the next two years.
Sure, it would be great in an Apple watch, but until further miniaturization is complete, I can see a market for a device, say the size of iPod, that could measure blood glucose levels without finger sticks. Apple probably doesn't want to sell such a single purpose device, but maybe they could license it to another manufacturer, as the technology would be great for millions of people.
2 years? LOL. My BEST guesstimate is 10 years, and that’s just for a stand-alone expensive consumer version from the big boys medical device companies. Apple will wait until cost is so cheap (so they get the best margin) and miniaturization is optimized before they get in, and that’s even before going through the FDA process. This research has gone for decades, done by good scientists. A random Apple Silicon Valley engineer wont just suddenly do magic. This is real science, not pseudo science conjured up through made up algorithm ala Silicon Valley.
And believe me, I actually have a skin in the game as I have diabetic family members.
At this point, an Apple car is actually more feasible.
Last edited:
Apple never make their own stuff. All the sensors used in iPhones and Apple Watches are made by other companies (eg. Sony for the camera on iPhones, Rockley Photonics for the sensors on Apple Watch). Apple is the master of outsourcing, getting the cheapest cost to maximize margin. They don’t even do their own R&D in these sensors, they rely on their suppliers coming up with the breakthrough.
If and that's a big if they can get it working. It will potentially be incredibly useful to millions. I have an Apple Watch due to my heart, I got a new Series 8 last week for my birthday, I never though the blood oxygen sensor would be useful but it's already told me my cardio health is poor lol. But that's probably due to the medication also. My heart rate doesn't increase massively when I'm exercising.
Still whilst they might not be absolutely dependable they do make great tools to give you an idea of your health, and help you to monitor it.
Still whilst they might not be absolutely dependable they do make great tools to give you an idea of your health, and help you to monitor it.
I think that's more difficult to achieve though, you can buy a watch that does it already but it actually has a small compressor and uses the band as an air bag, but it works around your wrist instead of your arm, so no different to the way it's done normally just in a different place.
You can install an App like wristTemperature, its for free and it shows the collected data direct on the watch
This is non-news, macrumors. She said nothing! Blood glucose monitoring is incredibly important to health nuts, particularly those of us who fast and try to keep blood glucose low for the life-extending/anti-aging benefits.
I guess that's settled then! You don't like the headline so the big bad article must be wrong 😢
What an extremely narrow minded point of view you just expressed. The headline is simply referring to the fact that the author got back to back readings between 88% and 100% from the blood oxygen sensor. One of which would indicate his lungs where indeed sick and the other perfect.
As a Type 1 diabetic, there is almost no technology (other than a cure) that is more important to me than having a noninvasive way of knowing my blood sugar levels all the time. Recent improvements in invasive continuous glucose monitoring has been a game changer for me and thousands upon thousands of diabetics. It is entirely possible that just having access to always knowing your blood sugar has extended my life by 10 years or more, and put off blindness, amputations and kidney disease by just as much. Having that capacity without a sensor (short piece of thick fishing line) sticking in your body and having to switch them out and calibrate them, is worth the effort, but is also not great. It is also ridiculously expensive (out of pocket cost is about $450 per month).
Not medical advice of course, but you might want to ask your doctor about the Freestyle Libre or the new Dexcom G7. I believe they are much cheeper than earlier Dexcom sensors.
I appreciate you summarizing it for me.
My experience and all the people I know who have an Apple watch have had different results. And those results are accurate within 1% point.
As far as being narrow minded, I'm going to take the direct experience of myself, friends and colleagues over the opinion of a journalist who feels they need to draw people into a story about an important matter by using sensational language.
I do hope it comes sooner than later for you and all the other people I know who would benefit from it.
I will say the Apple watch does have a lot of other health features that should not be over looked. Those may be beneficial to you as well.