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.
Report Claims iWatch Awaiting FDA Approval, Will Feature Blood Glucose and Sweat Sensors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And meanwhile all that other companies think is how put more cores of CPU and more gigabytes of RAM in their smartphones...
If they truly had a way to give non-invasive glucose readings, that'd be a big thing: Lots of people have an increased risk of developing diabetes due to lifestyle and/or family history. There's definitely a market for something that could conveniently and reliably(!) alert you to the early warning signs.
Then again, most people commenting on this seem to agree that there's currently no technology for measuring glucose levels in that way, so I'n not holding my breath for that one.
I hope the FDA rejects it if Apple plans to claim they can measure glucose levels non-invasively. Doing so reliably is not possible today, and many companies working specifically in this area have been trying for years, it's not the kind of thing Apple could summon out of nowhere. And innacurate results are far from good enough with something as critical as this.
I wonder how this is going to pan out here in the UK, there's been talks of the iWatch being subsidised by health insurance in the US, we don't have that in the UK we have the NHS. But also with FDA approval, will that also approve it for the UK? I will buy an iWatch, if it's not going to cost upward of several thousands of dollars/pounds like it was reported a couple of months back.
Wow, this is a REVOLUTION in watches! I simply CANNOT WAIT for this watch, is there anything it can't do?!...
My guess is that it will run full OS X, be a phone, an iPod, and I'll be able to talk to it and KITT will come smashing through a wall and I can get in it and drive up to the top of the Berlin Wall and free the universe...
...can we have some better Macs too please
----------
...the watch will talk to you in a patronising manner like most NHS receptionists
My guess is that it will run full OS X, be a phone, an iPod, and I'll be able to talk to it and KITT will come smashing through a wall and I can get in it and drive up to the top of the Berlin Wall and free the universe...
...can we have some better Macs too please
----------
...the watch will talk to you in a patronising manner like most NHS receptionists
You are correct. Most people, regardless of what they say, in reality don't give a damn about their health if it involves even the slightest effort. There we exceptions, such as the folks in Silicon Valley, but the rest of America prefers to watch boob toob all day and chow down on junk food. I don't know if the folks in Cupertino have a real sense of the average slob. The average slob that wants a new shiny smartphone ain't gonna shell out several hundred bucks for a health monitor.
I can see an angle that Apple could be shooting at in the future. If they can get reliable glucose readings the watch may qualify as a monitor and be paid by insurance companies and government insurance such as medicare and medicaid.
How do we know Apple hasn't been working on this for years (or hired people who have)? They started working on the Swift programming language in 2010. The first ANYONE outside Apple heard about it was WWDC this year. Also I highly doubt the FDA would approve something that's not possible or reliable just because it came from Apple. My guess is this is the rumor mill gone wild with all sorts of crazy stuff.
I live less than 3 miles from FDA headquarters in Beltsville, MD...it pains me to think that someone is throughly testing an iWatch nearby and I can't get near it.
I guess it's time to go 007...
Ummm - they won't actually be testing anything at the FDA, just going through a shed load of documentation and test results. Which leads me to think that they aren't submitting anything for FDA approval on the grounds that surely one of Apple's test subjects would have broken their non-disclosure by now.
I'm going to take a wild guess that Apple isn't marking this to slobs. I live right next to a Lifetime Fitness gym. The parking lot is full every day. Not everyone in the USA is sitting in front of the TV eating junk food.
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
If this rumour is indeed true and Apple has a glucose meter functionality in its iWatch then this will be a game changer that will rival the iPad.
Why is this? There are millions of Diabetes 1 and 2 persons reliant on glucose meters. The test strips for those alone generate a yearly global revenue of 10 Billion for that entire market combined. Considering the lack of convenience with test strips (ask any diabetes patient) they will gladly switch to a non-invasive version and pay premium amounts for it.
If indeed true, than Abbott Diabetes Care, Lifescan, Bayer and Roche have a serious problem.
And that is only the glucose part. If the other sensors are also FDA approved, then this watch will replace a whole host of different sensors that people use both from a personal fitness but also health perspective (as in prescribed blood pressure monitors etc).
I work for a technology consulting company that works in wearables, health monitoring and other medical applications. We see our market growing explosively and very rapidly expanding into consumer territory.
Fitbits and Fuelbands are only the tip of the iceberg here. Accurate (hence FDA approval) Health Tracking and data management is the next frontier. You personally might not be interested in it, but it is the case.
p.s. the global amount of people with diabetes increases with 2.3% each year. Mostly in China, Middle East and the USA. This is a fast growing market with the need for a consumer ready replacement for the test strip model.
I'm going to take a wild guess that Apple isn't marking this to slobs. I live right next to a Lifetime Fitness gym. The parking lot is full every day. Not everyone in the USA is sitting in front of the TV eating junk food.
This. I think there's a huge market for an accurate health tracker. I'd be the first in line to buy one, but I just don't think we are there yet, techwise. Couple more years.
Fuelbands and Fitbits have caught on, albeit in a small way with people who are concerned about their exercise levels. But, they are really just sophisticated pedometers, so of limited use. At the next level up, most runners and cyclists (and that's a pretty big market in itself) I know use a GPS based sports watch and maybe a heart rate monitor. But they are intrusive and really only for use during exercise.
If you could produce something as unobtrusive as a fitbit that gave you the accuracy and depth of information you can get from a Garmin and HRM, then you might be onto something - the next level for the health conscious.
The FDA can only approve if the device measures accurately. I'm sceptic too about the possibility for accurate measurements, but the FDA has not possibility to approve the device if it does not comply to the current accuracy requirements, which have been updated last year in fact.
Tablets never caught on until Apple made one
Smartphones never caught on until Apple made one
MP3 Music Players never caught on until Apple made one.
I'm going to take a wild guess that Apple isn't marking this to slobs. I live right next to a Lifetime Fitness gym. The parking lot is full every day. Not everyone in the USA is sitting in front of the TV eating junk food.
Less than 5% of Americans work out regularly. If you have a LF gym in your area, then you are in a high population density area of at least a million people. Of that million, what percent does it take to fill that parking lot? 0.001%. Of that, how many will buy a super duper sweat monitor? Is that what Apple is aiming for? 0.0001% of Americans?
I'm sure you can come back with a rebuttal of my conjecture, but I'm just trying to make the point that a health watch in no way could ever be "the next big thing."
I live less than 3 miles from FDA headquarters in Beltsville, MD...it pains me to think that someone is throughly testing an iWatch nearby and I can't get near it.
I guess it's time to go 007...
The FDA doesn't test and will likely never see the device. What Apple needs to do is provide test results and data, nothing more.
----------
You make the mistake of many in that you look at where we are now and think that will never change. In my business we see an explosion of wearables and health related consulting work. Insurances reward consumers that work on their health and can demonstrate that reliably.
This is a happening trend. In stead of basing your assumptions on your own observations I recommend you to read some market reports.
By your rationale the iPad would never have been possible because no-one was using a tablet computer in 2008.
Who says it's non-invasive?
A simple invasive blood-glucose measurement may be a great alternative to those annoying audio alarms in the morning...
Macrumors, this is not correct. Blood Glucose Meters fall under Point of Care Diagnostic Devices, which have a approval procedure with an average length of only about 6 months.
Why not make a new generation iPod Nano that can dock to a watch band? Not everyone wants a watch and not everyone wants a mp3 player. Apple had the right idea year's ago before they redesigned that device. All they had to do was make it sleeker, add these features and allow it to communicate with idevices. Apple already had the blueprint and they threw it away.