or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Apple's next-gen iOS 8 to include 'Healthbook' app for comprehensive health monitoring
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple's next-gen iOS 8 to include 'Healthbook' app for comprehensive health monitoring - Page 2

post #41 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post
 

 

That's okay, better than a lot of what goes on here. :)

Thanks, Bro! :)

post #42 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post
 

 

Hi Christopher, hope I can jump in here. Your daughter is correct! You really see a different side of society in county hospitals. Sadly, there is a huge fraction of the population out there that lives terribly.. poor life skills, poor health, mental illness, domestic abuse, substance abuse. Compliance is a huge issue with this population, and monitoring such as what Apple seems to be working on could go a long way towards improving outcomes. Something that hasn't really been talked much about yet is the mental health aspect of monitoring biological functions. Biofeedback and monitoring of stats such as heart rate variability could also be very beneficial. As the ACE Study (acestudy.org) in particular has has shown, there is a direct causative relationship between mental and physical health.

 

Agreed, Patch. Along similar lines, I think it was David Brooks who said recently, (paraphrasing) If there was no poverty, we wouldn't have a crime problem, a murder problem, a health crisis, an education problem and on and on. Obviously, he realizes that you can't just wish away poverty but his point still stands.

 

The mental health aspect is huge. It sounds trite to say it, but the drugs and alcohol abuse are, in some ways, their self-medicating attempts. 

 

Best.

post #43 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

 

Surely no APPLE customers are obese! Steve and Jony would not approve. 

HaHa. I don't know, Jony and Stevo (before his illness) were looking a little pobsey! :)

 

No disrespect to SJ. :)

post #44 of 125

Watch Samesung rush to release something called "HealthApp"

post #45 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Agreed, Patch.
Which begs the question - why the iWatch?
post #46 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

Watch Samesung rush to release something called "HealthApp"
Samsung this time around is ahead of Apple as they already have a health app, which launched in 2012 on the S3.
S Health can sync with third-party blood pressure monitors, heart rate monitors and glucose meters — all over Bluetooth. It also includes diet tracking, room temperature and humidity tracking,...

http://mobihealthnews.com/28387/samsung-gets-fda-clearance-for-s-health-app/

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/02/samsung-launches-s-health-app/
Edited by Chipsy - 2/1/14 at 8:57am
post #47 of 125
OMG I hope its deletable...otherwise it'll just have to go in the Crap folder with the stock app
post #48 of 125
Every once in awhile a rumour comes out that manages to be somewhat true, but then stuff like this pops up and if the person writing provided just SLIGHTLY less information people might actually believe it, but while a lot of this can be done and monitored via external devices likes oximetry, activity, baseline caloric intake, temperature, respiration, etc, the thing that makes this PATENTLY false is that no device currently on the market or foreseen to be on the market can ACCURATELY detect glucose levels without providing something like urine (less accurate), or blood (more accurate), or eye moisture (there is a contact lens device being researched for this, actually) but an external watch or clip on device just won't do it. And if an article is suggesting that it CAN its just wrong. Possibly, what was meant was that this app could record readings FROM devices that CAN measure glucose levels and provide a diary of levels by transmitting the data via bluetooth (there are devices that already do this on the iPhone), but nope, a watch isn't going to do that, at least not with our current level of technology.
post #49 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonAnnArbor View Post

OMG I hope its deletable...otherwise it'll just have to go in the Crap folder with the stock app

I don't wanna have a life coach moment, but maybe look into your wealth and health when you have some time to spare?
post #50 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

 

Remarkably, in 1950, 50% of the US adult population smoked! Now it's down to ~20%. Still too high, to be sure, but a major improvement, nonetheless.

 

That's an amazing statistic, but the amount that the US adult population has increased since then, 20% is still probably close to the same number of people who smoked back then. Proportionately less but still the same amount.

 

Maybe this will give real-time indicators telling smokers while smoking that their blood pressure is increasing, O2 levels are decreasing and pulse is rising. When one actually sees these health-indicating statistics, maybe it will be a good form of discouragement to get people to think about quitting!

You talkin' to me?
Reply
You talkin' to me?
Reply
post #51 of 125
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

When one actually sees these health-indicating statistics, maybe it will be a good form of discouragement to get people to think about quitting!

 

Dropping insurance coverage for smoking-caused illnesses would also be a good form of discouragement.

post #52 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
When one actually sees these health-indicating statistics, maybe it will be a good form of discouragement to get people to think about quitting!

Dropping insurance coverage for smoking-caused illnesses would also be a good form of discouragement.

Not a smoker (was one long ago), but that's like saying let's drop health insurance for light-skinned people who have a tendency to lie in the sun....
post #53 of 125
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
Not a smoker (was one long ago), but that's like saying let's drop health insurance for light-skinned people who have a tendency to lie in the sun....

 

Not in the slightest. Tanning has redeeming qualities. Smoking is just prolonged suicide. The namby-pamby “Surgeon General’s Warning” being nothing more than a lie; in Ireland, for example, it’s not “smoking may cause forms of cancer”, it’s “Smoking causes lung cancer.” Period.

post #54 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What a stupid response.

Health care us 18% of US GDP. Any slice you can get of that 18% is HUGE.

Moreover, this is 3-5 years out. (Nowhere as laughably out like 10 years for Amazon drones, 15 years for Google Glass and 25 years for driverless cars).

Not to pick nits, but driverless cars are only 5-6 years off according to current predictions.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #55 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Not in the slightest. Tanning has redeeming qualities. Smoking is just prolonged suicide. The namby-pamby “Surgeon General’s Warning” being nothing more than a lie; in Ireland, for example, it’s not “smoking may cause forms of cancer”, it’s “Smoking causes lung cancer.” Period.

Other than to perhaps make you look like a piece of broiled chicken, what are the 'redeeming qualities' of tanning?
post #56 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Not to pick nits, but driverless cars are only 5-6 years off according to current predictions.

I'll believe that when insurance is figured out. I can accept 5-6 years after that.
post #57 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I'll believe that when insurance is figured out. I can accept 5-6 years after that.

I think insurance companies will be completely on board with removing the weakest link in the chain, which is the distracted, tired and careless driver. They'll still ultimately require a person to sit at the wheel to take responsibility for accidents, but the person will become the redundant backup for the self-drive system. I think some truckers, cab drivers and bus drivers will see their jobs disappear first.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #58 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I'll believe that when insurance is figured out. I can accept 5-6 years after that.

I think insurance companies will be completely on board with removing the weakest link in the chain, which is the distracted, tired and careless driver. They'll still ultimately require a person to sit at the wheel to take responsibility for accidents, but the person will become the redundant backup for the self-drive system. I think some truckers, cab drivers and bus drivers will see their jobs disappear first.

Really? You think that the 'weakest links in the chain' (an attribute correlated with all types of socio-economic characteristics) are the most likely buyers of driverless cars?

That's a new one to me.

How much will one of these cost, btw? And is there any infrastructure, regulation that taxpayers and politicians have to get behind, enable, and fund?
post #59 of 125
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
Other than to perhaps make you look like a piece of broiled chicken

 

No disagreement there. :p

 
what are the 'redeeming qualities' of tanning?

 

I’m to understand that a light tan (received by healthy outdoor activity) promotes vitamin D production. 

 

I don’t advocate laying out on a blanket on the beach–nor naked in a box of fluorescent lights–but being a pale shadow year round is less healthy than darkening in the summer from swimming or what have you.

 

Though I do like the people who manage to turn themselves orange, either by indoor tanning or spray-on tan, simply because it’s nice to have a long distance indicator of stupidity instead of needing to wait to hear them talk. :lol:

post #60 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Other than to perhaps make you look like a piece of broiled chicken

No disagreement there. 1tongue.gif
Quote:
what are the 'redeeming qualities' of tanning?

I’m to understand that a light tan (received by healthy outdoor activity) promotes vitamin D production. 

I don’t advocate laying out on a blanket on the beach–nor naked in a box of fluorescent lights–but being a pale shadow year round is less healthy than darkening in the summer from swimming or what have you.

Though I do like the people who manage to turn themselves orange, either by indoor tanning or spray-on tan, simply because it’s nice to have a long distance indicator of stupidity instead of needing to wait to hear them talk. lol.gif

Some people similarly claim that smoking is good for stress reduction, and stress is a leading factor in heart attacks.

As to vitamin D, there's always them pills.... ;-)
post #61 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


What a stupid response.

Health care us 18% of US GDP. Any slice you can get of that 18% is HUGE.

Moreover, this is 3-5 years out. (Nowhere as laughably out like 10 years for Amazon drones, 15 years for Google Glass and 25 years for driverless cars).

Uh, no.

 

If anyone thinks that a "Fitness Focus" is going to do anything for Apple other than drive it into the ground, they've got another thing coming.

 

"Fitness" and everything related to it is not going to sell devices, or encourage software upgrades. Fitness as a tentpole feature of software or hardware will be about as popular as the "enhancements to Siri" were in iOS 6.

post #62 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Dropping insurance coverage for smoking-caused illnesses would also be a good form of discouragement.

 

Wow...that is officially the dumbest and most ignorant thing you've ever posted. You think people smoke, with the thought process of, "Well if it makes me sick at least I have insurance for medical care"....????????

post #63 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

Wow...that is officially the dumbest and most ignorant thing you've ever posted. You think people smoke, with the thought process of, "Well if it makes me sick at least I have insurance for medical care"....????????

 

 

Wow. I don't like ts's histrionics much, but I'll defend him here. Just like raising cigarette taxes has reduced smoking, raising the cost of smoking in other ways should have the same effect. Pretty basic economics. Of course most smokers don't contemplate their distant future every time they pick up a cigarette, but a drumbeat of stories about smokers having to pay for their own chemo and cancer drugs would have to have *some* effect. 

 

That said, I think there's approximately zero chance that insurance companies will stop covering smoking-related illnesses, many of which may be caused by other things. Another option: charging smokers bigger premium differentials (already done for life & health insurance in many states, but the difference could be bigger) might make the future costs more apparent to smokers in the present.

post #64 of 125
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Wow...that is officially the dumbest and most ignorant thing you've ever posted. You think people smoke, with the thought process of, "Well if it makes me sick at least I have insurance for medical care"....????????

 

No, but talk about dumb and ignorant things to post. There’s absolutely no explanation for that nonsense. Quoted to remain an embarrassment to you for years to come.

 

I physically shook my head when I read that.

post #65 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

Uh, no.

 

If anyone thinks that a "Fitness Focus" is going to do anything for Apple other than drive it into the ground, they've got another thing coming.

 

"Fitness" and everything related to it is not going to sell devices, or encourage software upgrades. Fitness as a tentpole feature of software or hardware will be about as popular as the "enhancements to Siri" were in iOS 6.

 

No wonder Nike went bankrupt when they came out with FuelBand...

 

"Nike Inc.'s Equipment division saw an 18% rise in profits for the 2012 fiscal year after introduction of the Nike+ FuelBand, in comparison to the -1% loss during the 2011 fiscal year.[7] Before the FuelBand's official American release, it was open for pre-order online, and was sold out both times within the same day.[8][9] A consumer on Twitter timed one of the pre-order periods to be exactly 4 minutes before all FuelBands were sold out and Nikestore.com was overloaded due to customer traffic.[10] Nike+ FuelBands were being sold on eBay during the first couple of months after pre-order for approximately double the retail price.[11]"

post #66 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Wow. I don't like ts's histrionics much, but I'll defend him here. Just like raising cigarette taxes has reduced smoking, raising the cost of smoking in other ways should have the same effect. Pretty basic economics. Of course most smokers don't contemplate their distant future every time they pick up a cigarette, but a drumbeat of stories about smokers having to pay for their own chemo and cancer drugs would have to have *some* effect. 

That said, I think there's approximately zero chance that insurance companies will stop covering smoking-related illnesses, many of which may be caused by other things. Another option: charging smokers bigger premium differentials (already done for life & health insurance in many states, but the difference could be bigger) might make the future costs more apparent to smokers in the present.
Getting people to quit is not a black and white thing. If you are going to deny them health care, or charge them for treatment, how about simply shutting down the tobacco companies ? Not quite straight forward, I think, but I'd be more in Favor of penalizing businesses that make their fortunes from preying on people's weaknesses knowing full well it's killing them and overloading health care.
post #67 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Rant

Definitely don't need an app to tell us that you're off your meds. lol.gif
post #68 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Getting people to quit is not a black and white thing. If you are going to deny them health care, or charge them for treatment, how about simply shutting down the tobacco companies ? Not quite straight forward, I think, but I'd be more in Favor of penalizing businesses that make their fortunes from preying on people's weaknesses knowing full well it's killing them and overloading health care.

Funny how countries like France and Japan have a higher proportion of smokers, yet have half the health care costs and least the same -- if not better health outcomes -- than the US does.
post #69 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


So basically it's not something we're going to see in 2014. Heck that contact lens Google is working on is like 5 years away from coming to market.

 

Anything hardware wise is mostly profitless vaporware for Google, except for their in house servers.

post #70 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Funny how countries like France and Japan have a higher proportion of smokers, yet have half the health care costs and least the same -- if not better health outcomes -- than the US does.

 

Clearly Americans should keep smoking, and fix whatever the other problem is. Smoking must not be a problem at all.

post #71 of 125

For years Apple TV has just been a hobby, and now in the last few weeks it has become a full-fledged product on the Apple Store online. I wonder if this is to make room for a new hobby? Health is a whole new area for Apple and it's not clear that exercise based product will necessarily be successful, so I wonder if Healthbook will be announced as the new hobby?

post #72 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post

Anything hardware wise is mostly profitless vaporware for Google, except for their in house servers.
Actually if you would have taken a look at Google's revenue you would have known that it is not all vaporware and that an increasing amount of revenue comes from hardware sales. Just in 2013 its revenues from hardware doubled to 13% of the total revenue.

It looks like it that Google is looking more and more to hardware sales to boost its revenue, it is well aware that it can't keep this growth up with just advertising revenue, while Apple is looking more and more to revenue via targeted advertising (iAd) in order to not be completely dependable on hardware sales but also provide services. Strange how that works right? When companies reach such high points like Apple and Google have it is important to diversify. Else if you keep doing one thing, if that one thing slows down you will quickly have decreasing stock value.
post #73 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post


Clearly Americans should keep smoking, and fix whatever the other problem is. Smoking must not be a problem at all.

[facepalm] speechless [/facepalm]
post #74 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post
 

That's an amazing statistic, but the amount that the US adult population has increased since then, 20% is still probably close to the same number of people who smoked back then. Proportionately less but still the same amount.

 

Maybe this will give real-time indicators telling smokers while smoking that their blood pressure is increasing, O2 levels are decreasing and pulse is rising. When one actually sees these health-indicating statistics, maybe it will be a good form of discouragement to get people to think about quitting!

Agreed! In 1960 the US population was 180 million.

 

Unfortunately, the only population where smoking in not decreasing is young women. When I see Sean Penn (and others) on-screen with a cigarette "acting" it really frustrates me to no end.

 

Best.

post #75 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post


Which begs the question - why the iWatch?

Sorry, Pax. I don't follow? :)

post #76 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Dropping insurance coverage for smoking-caused illnesses would also be a good form of discouragement.
Not being from the US I assumed premiums would increase proportionally based on healthy/unhealthy lifestyle choices? Wouldn't that adjust for this ?

Not to hijack this thread however. If something like this were proven to actually make people healthier the government could subsidize it with saved healthcare money (that's coming from a socialist Canadian viewpoint!)
post #77 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

Not being from the US I assumed premiums would increase proportionally based on healthy/unhealthy lifestyle choices? Wouldn't that adjust for this ?

Not to hijack this thread however. If something like this were proven to actually make people healthier the government could subsidize it with saved healthcare money (that's coming from a socialist Canadian viewpoint!)

Under the new Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) the rules have changed. Healthy as can be or just this sidfe of death no longer will matter. It's more age-based now.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/faqs/will-i-pay-less-for-health-insurance-if-im-in-good-health-or-more-if-i-have-a-pre-existing-condition

Smoking is the one exception. No one can be denied coverage because they smoke. In most cases they won't even pay more for insurance than those that don't. But certain insurance companies in certain States may charge up to a 50% surcharge if you're a tobacco user.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-03/how-much-more-will-smokers-pay-for-obamacare

FWIW I went cold-turkey one night over 5 years ago and have never lit up a tobacco product 1wink.gif since.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


[facepalm] speechless [/facepalm]

 

Sorry, did that need a /s tag? Hehe.

post #79 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


Actually if you would have taken a look at Google's revenue you would have known that it is not all vaporware and that an increasing amount of revenue comes from hardware sales. Just in 2013 its revenues from hardware doubled to 13% of the total revenue.

It looks like it that Google is looking more and more to hardware sales to boost its revenue, it is well aware that it can't keep this growth up with just advertising revenue, while Apple is looking more and more to revenue via targeted advertising (iAd) in order to not be completely dependable on hardware sales but also provide services. Strange how that works right? When companies reach such high points like Apple and Google have it is important to diversify. Else if you keep doing one thing, if that one thing slows down you will quickly have decreasing stock value.

 

 

Looking at Google's earnings report 90.2% of their revenue is search: Actual percent of Hardware profit if any, i couldn't find the breakdown, but since the margin of hardware is lower than software the percentage of search profit is probably at 98% of 3.3 billion made. Google is currently a one trick pony, Google brought Nest to be the in house Hardware design department and you don't do that if you are making a profit on hardware which they aren't, far to many moonshot's.

 

(from Google's Earning's Report) Other Google Revenues - Other revenues from the Google segment were $1.65 billion, or 10% of total Google segment revenues (16.86 billion), in the fourth quarter of 2013. This represents a 99% increase over fourth quarter 2012 other Google segment revenues of $829 million. (added notation: 16.86 billion).

post #80 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post


I wouldn't get hopes up too high on glucose level detecting in the iWatch. This rumor is based on the acquisition by Apple of one of the researchers of Sano Intelligence, a company that is developing a patch that can detect glucose levels. However this technology is property of Sano Intelligence (and C8, but their tech failed in measuring consistently accurate levels leading to the eventual bankruptcy) and doesn't move to Apple because they acquired one (a couple of engineers in the case of C8) of the researchers. If they were planning on using this they probably would have bought a license from Sano, which would be the fastest way of getting it to market, instead of buying one of the researchers. Furthermore this is a new technology and just like Googles glucose lens it still has to undergo years of testing and further refinement before it gets FDA approval (if you build a machine from existing tech it can even take as long as 7 months so...). I rather think they just needed people with a lot of experience in sensors, f.e. that person also developed a patch that measures heart beat, blood pressure, skin temperature, stress detection, ... Stuff like that seems more likely. The glucose patch (just like Googles lens) is estimated to be at least 5 years away from market introduction.

What is possible is that you manually enter glucose levels so you can keep track of it. Or at most like S Health be capable of integrating with third-party glucosemeters via Bluetooth.

 

Thanks for the info. Glucose reader or not, it seems like integrating sensors with a healthcare app is going to be huge, especially if implemented in a simple way. Siri already queues up info about driving to work and weather; it'd be great if it could summarize your daily health stats as well, provide suggestions based on predetermined health target goals, prompt for medications, etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
 

Agreed, Patch. Along similar lines, I think it was David Brooks who said recently, (paraphrasing) If there was no poverty, we wouldn't have a crime problem, a murder problem, a health crisis, an education problem and on and on. Obviously, he realizes that you can't just wish away poverty but his point still stands.

 

The mental health aspect is huge. It sounds trite to say it, but the drugs and alcohol abuse are, in some ways, their self-medicating attempts. 

 

Best.

 

You always have great quotes! I fully agree with David Brooks, but with one caveat, that I think poverty in and of itself is a bit of a red herring, and that, at least in the US, poverty is more of a cultural phenomenon. I believe most people have the innate ability to find their way out of poverty; we just need to find and rectify the (mostly) psychological and practical barriers that keep them there. I've given away my bias, but I think mental health has a lot to do with it, and I suspect Apple will somehow integrate this into their health effort.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post


Not being from the US I assumed premiums would increase proportionally based on healthy/unhealthy lifestyle choices? Wouldn't that adjust for this ?

Not to hijack this thread however. If something like this were proven to actually make people healthier the government could subsidize it with saved healthcare money (that's coming from a socialist Canadian viewpoint!)

 

Good point! In the US there has been a big push to emphasize preventative care. If Apple were able to qualify the iWatch/sensors as FDA approved health aids, there is the potential that insurance companies could subsidize or pay for them. There are many commonly used medications that (in the US at least) cost $300.. per month! Some Apple hardware would be (relatively) inexpensive and potentially save money in the long run.

   

Reply

   

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Apple's next-gen iOS 8 to include 'Healthbook' app for comprehensive health monitoring