Most data can become actionable data.
Just not true. Some data is actionable, some is just the equivalent of random numbers.
If you have a year archive of your daily heart rate or temperature or something else, you’ll notice the difference when suddenly it slightly raises or drops for no obvious reason.
Great example. You have a set of numbers that have changed. Unfortunately, without lots more numbers that describe lots of other things, you have no information about what cause these numbers to change. Fitbit claims they are the first smart watch with a Electrodermal Activity (also known as Galvanic Skin Response) sensor, but Basis Science had one two years before the Apple Watch was released (2013). They make some hand-wavey statement about measuring stress, but after contacting them, they said they have no published research papers that explain their methods.
For example if your daily resting heart rate becomes higher, you’ll get a clue that something is off, you may need to check your health.
No, you just have a clue that your RHR is higher. Again, without correlative data from other sensors, you really do not know much.
Same for temperature or other data.
Yup, you have more data with no idea what it means.
You may not need to read or interpret some data yourself, but your doctor may find it useful.
If Fitbit have published, peer-reviewed papers that explain both the data and its expected variability, or studies submitted to the FDA for certification as a medical device, you might be right, if they do not, it is just noise.
Technical issues are a different story. If skin temperature is so unreliable then ok, do something else or find a workaround. Hire talented people, innovate.
Wow. You are funny. Two years ago, Apple introduced the first medical grade single lead EKG on a consumer device, and you are complaining that they do not innovate. Fitbit are relying on Apple’s
de novo precedent to get their device certified (something that has not yet happened and we do not know how long it will take - WiThings are still waiting for FDA certification for their BPM Core a year later, Qardio is either still waiting on certification for its Qardio Core 4 years later, or have given up).
It feels like Apple Watch has a huge unrealized potential to be the real health tracking device. And Apple is the most valued company right now with huge profits. What else do they need?
We see store after story about how Apple Watch has saved lives. Unlike your “just store the data for a year and it should all be obvious” approach, Apple needs clinically validated results to be able to sell functionality. That means they first have to identify the data, then they need to validate it, then they need to work with the FDA to agree on what is needed to get it approved, and finally, they need to perform certification tests. Then they have to do that for every other market in which they want to enable a new feature. Not sure what exactly you are expecting, but it seems you are a bit unrealistic.
