Report Claims iWatch Awaiting FDA Approval, Will Feature Blood Glucose and Sweat Sensors

I just hope health book can figure out when I am going to die so I know when to party it up.

ETA till death: 1 year, 2 days remaining...

Imagine siri giving you the update: "you went for a walk today, and only had 2 vodkas last night, you have added another week to your life."
 
peterdevries said:
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.
Click to expand...
FDA allows 20% error on glucose strips, which is a pretty wide margin. Too wide for comfort, but I doubt any glucose monitoring tech could be approved if they only allowed, say, a 5% margin of error. I don't think any of the non-invasive methods are anywhere near 20%, reliably.

Basically you have to give diabetics something, even at 20% error, or they'd be totally screwed. For those who take insulin, administering it without a glucose reading would be suicide, either because they take too much and suffer a potentially fatal case of hypoglycemia, or too little and start losing eyes and kidneys.

One thing we're waiting to see is what software Apple will make available to support this health/fitness effort. Diabetes software for OSX and IOS is generally rather terrible. Poorly designed, hard to use, not iOS/OSX transferable, and without important calculations like HbA1c.
 
peterdevries said:
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.
Click to expand...

It takes only 6 months for a flagship phone to become stale in this market. Samsung could release 4 smart watches, 9 tablets and 8 phones in the same period. 6 months is long when it comes to mobile tech.
 
randian said:
FDA allows 20% error on glucose strips, which is a pretty wide margin. Too wide for comfort, but I doubt any glucose monitoring tech could be approved if they only allowed, say, a 5% margin of error. I don't think any of the non-invasive methods are anywhere near 20%, reliably.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is not completely correct. The new standard measurements to be within 15% of the actual value in 95% of all measurements.

The amount of engineering necessary to achieve that is quite remarkable in a device that should be used by consumers. Many manufacturers are struggling to achieve the new accuracy standard and I expect that many smaller ones will disappear.

There are now two streams in glucose monitoring:
1- test-strip manufacturers. A mature business that generates in excess of 10 Billion a year in global revenue that does not significantly innovate other than improvement of the test strips to new accuracy levels
2- non-invasive glucose testers. These are not ready for market yet (which is why I'm sceptic of this rumour) but have the future. It is more convenient, cheap and will over time be equally accurate as category 1.
 
cdmoore74 said:
It takes only 6 months for a flagship phone to become stale in this market. Samsung could release 4 smart watches, 9 tablets and 8 phones in the same period. 6 months is long when it comes to mobile tech.
Click to expand...

That was not my point. They can use the same technology in subsequent mobile phone versions. It doesn't impede the regular phone update cycle, especially when it comes to Apple, which as we all know has a 12 month update cycle.
 
iWatch: "Congratulations. You now, officially, stink."

iWatch: "You are having a heart attack... would you like to listen to Beyonce's latest song?"
 
iolinux333 said:
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."
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting your stats from but I live in a town of 24K. The two towns closest to me (that might use this gym) have a combined population of 86K. No where near a million.
 
Whenever Apple does something cool like this, it makes me think, "Dude, we're living in the future!" But that literally can't be true, because it would cause a paradox and make the universe explode, right? Whoa...
 
jacobj said:
How would the swear sensor work? What would it be looking for?
Click to expand...

It has a microphone and access to a vast library of curse words. When it detects swearing, it will shock the wearer.

----------
Lesser Evets said:
iWatch: "Congratulations. You now, officially, stink."

iWatch: "You are having a heart attack... would you like to listen to Beyonce's latest song?"
Click to expand...

They should then brand the "iWatch" the Solange, because it will be a big hit!
 
Robin4 said:
If it can measure blood glucose accurately, no more questions, I'm in.
Click to expand...

Too bad I don't need one. This only targets a specific population. I don't see people under the age of 30 with Beats headphones saying "can't wait to test my blood glucose". And if I need the feature hopefully it's years from now when I'm much older.
I'm a guy; I haven't been to the dentist in 3 freaking years and that is covered under my insurance. My wife has to scream at me to go. Most guys are lazy to care about health gadgets until something bad happens. Not saying every guy because I know that there are some sensitive ones here with small pockets; I'm saying the majority of guys.
 
Wrong

iolinux333 said:
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."
Click to expand...

Why do people make up statistics? We all have google. Over half the population of America works out regularly. Fact check gone wrong

Specifically, 53.8 percent of Americans reported exercising for at least half an hour on three or more days a week so far in 2013 (according to monthly averages), compared with 55.2 percent of Americans who reported that level of exercise last year.
Fewer Americans Exercise Frequently This Year, Study Finds
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/americans-exercise_n_3671508.html
 
na1577 said:
Health tracking is not the next big thing.

There's a reason why those Fuelbands and Fitbits never caught on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like we all know how the mass population (esp America) are so into health and fitness, All you can see are fit, well tonen bodies as far as the eye can see.

;)
 
MacRumors said:
Laoyaoba also claims that the iWatch will come with a number of advanced health sensors, including those that measure heart rate, blood pressure, and blood glucose.
Click to expand...

This is sounding more and more like a device for hypochondriacs. Perhaps they should re-name it the iWorry? I'm starting to seriously wonder about the responsibility/ethics of using health to sell gadgets.

Most people simply don't need to measure these things, beyond (maybe) annual screenings (...and there are already some concerns over the unintended consequences of mass screening).

Even people with relevant medical conditions don't necessarily need 24/7 monitoring.

Its great that the research is going on - I'm sure that there are diabetics out there who would be delighted not to have to do finger-prick tests half a dozen times a day - but that's not even most diabetics. For those that do need constant monitoring, their lives depend on it - that's not a job for a bit of mass-market consumer electronics.

Sports? Do you really want to encourage amateurs to start redlining it on heart rate and BP without medical supervision?

...meanwhile, will those of us who just want to see text messages and calandar alerts on their wrists have to pay the premium for a medically certified device (all that liability insurance in case an iWatch fails to spot someone going hypo)?
 
If someone wants to make a credible iWatch mockup they have to realise Apple design products using minimalism. Basically, if something isn't absolutely essential to the functionality of the product, they cut it out.

The iWatch will feature the most simplistic geometry possible, while still being comfortable.
 
Judging by the large number of FitBits and similar devices in my office (and that's mostly programmers and accountants!) - the market is ripe for takeover by Apple. Sure a lot of people aren't fit - but they like to get numbers and statistics for their activity. Of course it does not give them any more will power - but it makes them buy the devices still :rolleyes:

In fact, I just realised that it's the fit people around me (myself included) - who don't wear FitBits. I sure don't want any more numbers in my life, I have enough of those in the gym and in the kitchen.

I also didn't wear any watches for the last 10 years and cannot imagine wearing one ever again... I wonder if iWatch would be useful as a device for occasional use - like only during jogging or cycling? I don't want anything on my limp wrist, but I sure would like a new shiny Apple gadget :apple: :rolleyes:
 
robertosh said:
I don't use watches cause i feel them uncomfortable,so it will be very difficult that Apple convince me to wear one.
Click to expand...

You can be sure they won't try to convince you. As always, they'll present the features and benefits, then let you decide if you'll want to pay for one.
 
Last edited:
robertosh said:
I don't use watches cause i feel them uncomfortable,so it will be very difficult that Apple convince me to wear one.
Click to expand...

Apple is not stupid , it knows people who wear watches like preferred brands , and people who don't wear watches won't be wearing one. The iwatch will be a fitness bracelet. I'll bet my kidney on it.
 
Bogus

Please explain who a watch can take a blood pressure without determining blood flow... Unless the watch is able to squeeze ones wrist this will not be possible...

Stranger things have happened though.
 
theluggage said:
This is sounding more and more like a device for hypochondriacs... Most people simply don't need to measure these things, beyond (maybe) annual screenings ... Even people with relevant medical conditions don't necessarily need 24/7 monitoring. ...meanwhile, will those of us who just want to see text messages and calandar alerts on their wrists have to pay the premium for a medically certified device (all that liability insurance in case an iWatch fails to spot someone going hypo)?
Click to expand...

But isn't this very much like email and text messaging? It's little more than an extension of people's growing incessant need to be connected by gathering unimportant trivia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top