or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google to launch Apple HealthKit competitor for Android at I/O conference - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google to launch Apple HealthKit competitor for Android at I/O conference - report - Page 2

post #41 of 94
Sorry, Googs. You are getting no way near my medical records.
post #42 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

:lol: 

 

How about?

 

Google Bowel Analytics

 

http://www.google.com/tisp/

How about "Soylent Green Harvesting Inc"?

post #43 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Yes, Do no evil, indeed. Google could have at least try to be ethical.

IMHO Google does have high ethical standards.
http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/

That they may have had a lapse or three in some folks opinion doesn't make them unethical.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 94

Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.

 

I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)

post #45 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.

I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)

Are you referring to Yahoo, Bing and others or Google? I don't know anymore who honors Do Not Track and who doesn't other than what's claimed in blog articles or company statements. I know that Yahoo is one of those that says they ignore it. That was just a few weeks ago.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/yahoo-is-the-latest-company-ignoring-web-users-requests-for-privacy/

IMHO they all should honor it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post
 

Well, when I set my preference to "do not track" and not only do they ignore my request, but also take measures to side-skirt my privacy settings, I'd say the word unethical fits the bill.

 

I realize that they do not have to abide by my "do not track" request, I have made myself very clear about my wishes. (which they decided to ignore)

Oh, I get it now. It's okay to ignore my wishes not to be tracked simply because other companies ignore it. Yup, you are correct, that is ethical. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

At least we are in agreement that they all should respect do not track requests.


Edited by Bilbo63 - 6/13/14 at 11:39am
post #47 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Are you referring to Yahoo, Bing and others or Google? I don't know anymore who honors Do Not Track and who doesn't other than what's claimed in blog articles or company statements. I know that Yahoo is one of those that says they ignore it. That was just a few weeks ago.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/05/yahoo-is-the-latest-company-ignoring-web-users-requests-for-privacy/

IMHO they all should honor it.

Do Not Track is silly to begin with.

 

1. It is a country specific (U.S.) feature while the Internet is global. Websites in the rest of the world have no obligation to follow it;

2. It is an honor system that can be easily ignored by websites. Websites and advertisers that are shady are never going to follow this anyways.

 

Lets be honest, Do Not Track is akin to everybody leaving their doors unlocked with some people having a sign saying "please do not steal anything".

post #48 of 94

I lock my doors at night because it's my wish that strangers not wander through my home. Unethical people who really want to go through my stuff anyway, just come in through the window, regardless of my wishes.

post #49 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
 
 I don't know anymore who honors Do Not Track and who doesn't other than what's claimed in blog articles or company statements. I know that Yahoo is one of those that says they ignore it. That was just a few weeks ago.

There is a difference between the browser sending a request header to the website for "Do not track" and a Safari setting that would not allow a third party cookie to be set unless the user specifically allowed it on a case by case basis such as clicking on submit for more information. What Google was doing was building a form using Javascript inside an invisible code block and then submitting the form itself also using Javascript, all without the user even being aware of what was going on or taking any action themselves. It was strictly a method to defeat a built in Safari security restriction. The feature in Safari was not based on an optional request header, it was a hard coded security restriction which Google circumvented. That is why they were fined. Not for ignoring a request in a header, but for actually attacking the users' computer.


Edited by mstone - 6/13/14 at 11:56am

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #50 of 94

Companies like Google and Facebook don't like personal privacy – their business model depends on it.

 

Actually companies like Google and Facebook don't like personal privacy unless it's theirs, then privacy is okay.

post #51 of 94

LOL.

 

GoogleGuy in here as usual defending his employer. Funny how we hardly see him in the countless other topics here on AI, yet when Google is mentioned he's out in full force ensuring nothing bad is said about Google without being "clarified" by GG.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #52 of 94
And anyone foolish enough to give Google access to their medical information will get what they deserve.
post #53 of 94

Why isn't there a climate of mis-trust on Google's commitment to "features" that they implement for their services. Google used to have a health protocol / app in place... but killed it off. Now they want to do it again because their main competitor is? Seriously?

post #54 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post
 

I will only be trusting one source for my health. My doctor. Not Apple, Not Google, Not Microsoft, Not wikipedia, Not WebMD, not some fancy 'wearable'. A trained living/breathing medical professional. 



I sympathize with this attitude, but you need to take it a step further. The person with the most interest in your well-being is yourself. Period, full-stop, end of story. It's always a good idea to include your health professionals in your decision-making processes, but they are human and make mistakes. They are also affected by various influences like money, status and institutional pressures around them every single day.

Consult with "living/breathing medical professionals", but remember the adage "trust but verify", and you will live a longer, healthier life. Do your own research, share with your physician(s), come to mutual decisions.

 

His comment was just a cop out comment, he knows Google sucks but wants to keep up the appearance of fairness, he doesn't want to say it. So I will Google Sucks!

post #55 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post
 

I will only be trusting one source for my health. My doctor. Not Apple, Not Google, Not Microsoft, Not wikipedia, Not WebMD, not some fancy 'wearable'. A trained living/breathing medical professional. 

El fin.

What are you gonna do when that doctor recommends that you get some fancy wearable to help him stay abreast of your status?

post #56 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
 

What are you gonna do when that doctor recommends that you get some fancy wearable to help him stay abreast of your status?

I will believe it when I see it. In this day and age I still have to fill out papers on contact, insurance and health information for every doctor a family member is referred to. Hell, even in the same office visit I can explain the issue and story multiple times for each nurse and doctor that steps into the room. "So what why are we here today?" Umm... I just explained it to the nurse a five minutes ago and the papers also explained the reason for the visit.

post #57 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post
 

I will believe it when I see it. In this day and age I still have to fill out papers on contact, insurance and health information for every doctor a family member is referred to. Hell, even in the same office visit I can explain the issue and story multiple times for each nurse and doctor that steps into the room. "So what why are we here today?" Umm... I just explained it to the nurse a five minutes ago and the papers also explained the reason for the visit.

I know, right?   But that's why the doctors want a solution.  They don't like the antiquated system much more than we do.

 

Give it 5-10 years and I think that wearables will be a useful part of medical sensing/storage/transmission.

post #58 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post
 

I will only be trusting one source for my health. My doctor. Not Apple, Not Google, Not Microsoft, Not wikipedia, Not WebMD, not some fancy 'wearable'. A trained living/breathing medical professional. 

El fin.

If you only have one MD, (and no Dentist, no Ophthalmologist, no Pharmacist), you're a lucky guy, or under 25.

 

I'm now closer to retirement than HS graduation... I've had 6 primary care physicians, 4 dermatologists, 1 EMG MD, 3 Cardiologists,  

I changed employers 5 times, I've had 6 insurance changes (one employer switched carriers, and they switched networks, and therefore my in network physician was out of network).  4 Medical records held by group practices, And at least 2 medical records held by private practice MDs.

Not including my family physician until I was 20 (he's still alive, but retired... my records are probably somewhere devoured by the corporation that bought his practice out).

 

I have at least 6 'current' medical records... but no 'complete' record.

 

I've been seen in 3 out of state urgent care facilities while consulting...

 

Unless you're the 'guy on the right', most people don't carry their medical record with them

 

 

All this said to say, if your ONE Doctor has your medical record... you're either lying or naive, and you're ill prepared for the next time you need to find a doctor 'in a hurry.'   Or don't care about the care you're about to get.

 

I have been arguing for 20 years for a national medical record.   One that _I_ own, and someone I trust is custodian of.  Since HIPAA, I've asked for copies of all my most recent findings scanned them ,and they are encrypted in the cloud and on a flash drive. My living will and non-durable power of attorney letters (unencrypted) on the same flash drive  in my wallet with waterproof instructions on how to get the decrypt key from my designee [who has the key, but not the password in my wallet]  Not perfect, but better than nothing.

 

I'm hoping Apple comes up with a better way.  


Edited by TheOtherGeoff - 6/13/14 at 1:33pm
post #59 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMHO Google does have high ethical standards.
http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/

That they may have had a lapse or three in some folks opinion doesn't make them unethical.

The LA NAACP honored Sterling once and was about to honor him again.
post #60 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

If you only have one MD, (and no Dentist, no Ophthalmologist, no Pharmacist), you're a lucky guy, or under 25.

 

I'm now closer to retirement than HS graduation... I've had 6 primary care physicians, 4 dermatologists, 1 EMG MD, 3 Cardiologists,  

I changed employers 5 times, I've had 6 insurance changes (one employer switched carriers, and they switched networks, and therefore my in network physician was out of network).  4 Medical records held by group practices, And at least 2 medical records held by private practice MDs.

Not including my family physician until I was 20 (he's still alive, but retired... my records are probably somewhere devoured by the corporation that bought his practice out).

 

I have at least 6 'current' medical records... but no 'complete' record.

 

I've been seen in 3 out of state urgent care facilities while consulting...

 

Unless you're the 'guy on the right', most people don't carry their medical record with them

 

All this said to say, if your ONE Doctor has your medical record... you're either lying or naive, and you're ill prepared for the next time you need to find a doctor 'in a hurry.'   Or don't care about the care you're about to get.

It's clear your comment and attitude as well as the others that tried to quote mine with some snark stupidity took my comment way too literally. Of course I don't have just one doctor; of course you should never blindly follow what a doctor tells you simply because he has a degree. You seem to go on a tangent about records. The person in charge of YOUR records is YOU. If you're worried about some corporation still having them or not...you're doing it wrong. If I ever have to switch doctors (and I have) the first thing I do is gather everything I have to date prior to carry forward. It's a bit annoying, but not hard, just have to be proactive. All of this is a silly sideshow to the point.

 

The real point is no one should be looking to mega consumer tech companies to solve their health problems, either by storage or devices. It's a solution looking for a problem they largely don't understand. Healthcare is a complex mess of regulation. We're happy our phones can find us on a map accurately most of the time. Most of the time doesn't cut it in health, you can't say oops. version 1.1.2 of X device will be more accurate with that next time. Perhaps I'm biased by being required for full workups annually, running EMS and fire calls for the 20 something years outside my day job and seeing situations first hand. I'll end with this, about a month ago we arrived a lady's house (early 50s) for complaint of typical low blood sugar symptoms. She swore up and down it was something she ate and not because her diabetes since all of her glucose meter readings were normal. Well guess what, that meter was shot. If she had waited much longer to call, I can't say what could have happened. Over reliance on the technology and not common sense. Again, I could be paranoid pessimistic and biased, but nothing is more important than your health. Take it seriously.

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #61 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post
 

I want nothing to do with this. In the eyes of Google, we are not their customer, we are their product.

 

Apple's priority is not mining our personal data, their data-driven services are designed to support the devices and services that they sell. Apple's revenue model is derived from selling actual stuff, not mining my data for ulterior uses.

 

yeah agree here -- no way would i want to give google my medical info. 

post #62 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


IMHO Google does have high ethical standards.
http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical/wme-honorees/

That they may have had a lapse or three in some folks opinion doesn't make them unethical.

 

Wow, what a legit list. Why am I NOT shocked to see Apple notably absent, but we have the likes of:

 

Adobe Systems Incorporated us.png USA Microsoft Corporation us.png USA Symantec us.png USA Teradata Corporation us.png USA Wipro Limited in.png India salesforce.com, inc. Dell Inc. us.png USA Hitachi Data Systems us.png USA Intel Corporation us.png USA -

 

Adobe? Salesforce? Symantec? Dell? Microsoft? We're supposed to believe these companies are all more "ethical" than Apple? What's stunning is looking at the "criteria" page: 

 

Ethics and Compliance Program (25%)

Reputation, Leadership and Innovation (20%)

Governance (10%)

Corporate Citizenship and Responsibility (25%)

Culture of Ethics (20%)

 

So these companies have superior reputations, leadership, and innovation than Apple? Better governance? Corporate Citizenship? 

 

We're talking about the same APple that invited media into their suppliers factories, the ONLY tech company to do so? The same Apple that has 100% of its data centers and most of its HQ running on renewable energy? The same Apple that has just built the biggest solar farm in the US? The same Apple that has hired 3rd party auditors to report on their factories in China and publicize the reports- the only company to do so? The same Apple that has a CEO who most people can agree cares deeply about ethics, and aggressively went off on an investor who was worried about the bottom line in context of this? The same Apple that seems to care more about users privacy than other major tech company out there? The same Apple that has incredibly high standards for labor, human rights, health and safety, the environment, and accountability?

 

Apple does not deserve to be on this list yet Dell, Microsoft, and Google do, as well as what looks to be 300 other companies? This doesnt strike you as odd, and you dont question the objectivity of this list? Howbout the fact that historically Apple doesnt participate in these "pay to play" bullshit lists, and instead actually does the hard work of of trying to be more responsible on all fronts? Instead you tout this as evidence of Google ethics? 

 

How much are you being paid for your blatant shilling and mental gymnastics required to defend Google at every opportunity?

post #63 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

It's clear your comment and attitude as well as the others that tried to quote mine with some snark stupidity took my comment way too literally. Of course I don't have just one doctor; of course you should never blindly follow what a doctor tells you simply because he has a degree. You seem to go on a tangent about records. The person in charge of YOUR records is YOU. If you're worried about some corporation still having them or not...you're doing it wrong. If I ever have to switch doctors (and I have) the first thing I do is gather everything I have to date prior to carry forward. It's a bit annoying, but not hard, just have to be proactive. All of this is a silly sideshow to the point.

The real point is no one should be looking to mega consumer tech companies to solve their health problems, either by storage or devices. It's a solution looking for a problem they largely don't understand. Healthcare is a complex mess of regulation. We're happy our phones can find us on a map accurately most of the time. Most of the time doesn't cut it in health, you can't say oops. version 1.1.2 of X device will be more accurate with that next time. Perhaps I'm biased by being required for full workups annually, running EMS and fire calls for the 20 something years outside my day job and seeing situations first hand. I'll end with this, about a month ago we arrived a lady's house (early 50s) for complaint of typical low blood sugar symptoms. She swore up and down it was something she ate and not because her diabetes since all of her glucose meter readings were normal. Well guess what, that meter was shot. If she had waited much longer to call, I can't say what could have happened. Over reliance on the technology and not common sense. Again, I could be paranoid pessimistic and biased, but nothing is more important than your health. Take it seriously.

I understand your point of view, of course we all could do those things, but these are humans we are talking about...let's face it, many do not not have the time, intelligence etc to do these things. That's why the technology was created(in theory). So, playing devils advocate... is saying to 300 million people... have your medical paper records compiled for the last 10, 20,30,40,50,60,70,80,... And now 90 and100 years realistic? And have them handy?
Would you prefer this lady self diagnosis by symptom, versus read a meter? Obviously she should be able to do it, but for how many people, thousands of people has this technology accurately allowed self diagnosis and prevented calls to an emt or worse? What if this lady was unconscious, does medic alert (ie record) help the EMT diagnose, perhaps do a quick blood check themselves? Yes, technology is not perfect, but does it help and not hurt more than no tech at all? Personally I'm a pessimist on all this tech stuff in the very end, but so far that has been tempered by experience.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.
Reply
post #64 of 94

The word 'privacy' is not in Google's dictionary.

 

Google is not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, neither is Apple.  So how do they monetize their health platform?  Apple does it by selling devices.  Google, by selling You.  Only the stupid or ignorant would entrust their health information to Google.

post #65 of 94
So Google is going to copy Apple? INCONCEIVABLE!
post #66 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Sorry, Googs. You are getting no way near my medical records.

Then you'd better make sure that your hospital doesn't use Google Apps. 

post #67 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


That was incorrect. Google's fine was for giving wrong instructions to Safari users on how to avoid tracking. It was not the tracking itself that was at issue. Heck that's done by thousands of companies even today. Setting your preference right now to "Do Not Track" won't prevent a couple dozen trackers from gleaning data from your use of AI's forums as you read this.

Here's the real explanation for the fine. Had Google not offered instructions on opting out of tracking there would not have been any fine whatsoever.The fine was because they placed a tracking cookie after inaccurately telling Safari users how they could avoid it Unfortunately it's not illegal to ignore Do Not Track and probably never will be.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented

 

Thanks for pointing this out; it's even worse than I originally thought.

Quote:

Google Inc. has agreed to pay a record $22.5 million civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misrepresented to users of Apple Inc.’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users, violating an earlier privacy settlement between the company and the FTC.

The settlement is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts make sure companies live up to the privacy promises they make to consumers, and is the largest penalty the agency has ever obtained for a violation of a Commission order.  In addition to the civil penalty, the order also requires Google to disable all the tracking cookies it had said it would not place on consumers’ computers.  

 

So they said they wouldn't do something, then they did it anyway. 

 

So they lied, basically.

 

What if they said they wouldn't sell my private data, then did it anyway?

What if they said they won't pass my tracked medical data to insurance companies, then did it anyway?

 

How far does this 'misrepresentation' go?

 

Again, thanks for correcting my mistake, but I think I'll pass on 'Google Health'  anyway. It's clear that the company cannot be trusted to do what they say the will do.

post #68 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Then you'd better make sure that your hospital doesn't use Google Apps. 

 

Very true. 

 

But what's worse is Google having access to your eating habits, sleeping habits, exercise regime, organ monitoring data gathered over time . . .

 

Your medical records only get updated when you go to your doctor, and people only do that when they're sick.

 

How much would the insurance companies pay to historical medical data that ran from when you bought your GoogleWatch, right up until the point you make a claim?

post #69 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrance View Post

So Google is going to copy Apple? INCONCEIVABLE!

Actually I don't think Google directly copied Apple, many hospitals have been using Google's Search Appliance with custom versions of software like Google Scholar to track, search and then store patient data into databases for a while now. Even though Google introduced Google Health in 2008 and was canceled in 2011, they still continued to offer custom solutions to hospitals based on the project. Also the use of Google as a medical diagnosis tool is used by a large majority of doctors and hospitals, again with custom search interfaces being offered through Google Enterprise and third party developers. So I really don't think this current Google venture was recently started for the sole reason of catching up to Apple but has been in the works for a while now, however their announcement timing is probably linked to Apples. What would you say if Google's conference happen to take place before Apple's WWDC and this project was announced then. would you be saying Apple copied Google, no of course not . 

 

In no way am I trying to down play Apples venture as I think their solution will be very elegant and probably better but saying Google copied Apple out right is just conjecture. I think the same thing can be said about Samsung's venture as they too have been working on medical related projects ever since they bought a hospital in SEOL back in 1994. Since then Samsung has created a medical division and are manufacturing medical and scientific equipment, as well as EMR software. There is also of course Microsoft Health Vault and Windows based tablets were used years before their was an EMR program on the iPad or even an iPad for that matter, however the iPad is defiantly the defacto tablet in hospitals now.

 

I'm just giving an opinion, on a further note I really hope these patient records will be stored on some sort of central data center that is governed by a regulatory body. No corporation should ever be allowed to store such information, Google, Apple or otherwise but I'm sure to start out any data these solutions access or store will be on the clients servers.


Edited by Relic - 6/14/14 at 3:20am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #70 of 94

Just so you know: he has sworn an oath of fealty to defend Google against all criticism.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #71 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Just so you know: he has sworn an oath of fealty to defend Google against all criticism.

A Google bannerman. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #72 of 94
Big effing surprise.
post #73 of 94
"3-D voice search"

Haha!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #74 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz View Post

Thanks for pointing this out; it's even worse than I originally thought.

So they said they wouldn't do something, then they did it anyway. 
Yup, pretty much. Google claims it was an inadvertant result of some coding. I remian unconvinced. In any event there wasn't anything that would have been deemed "fine-able" if Google hadn't specifically stated that Safari users didn't need to do anything beyond opting out of cookies. That's why some others can still get away with it.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/15/14 at 3:00pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 94
I'm actually surprised that nobody has tried to jump back on the DDR (Dance Dance Revolution) bandwagon and actually make better versions of this that also incorporate wii-balance-board type of technology) seems like something Apple could do with iTunes quite easily. Would probably sell well in Japan and Korea... not too sure about America.
post #76 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

every website I visit will have strategically inserted ads about said blood pressure.
 
New technology, fresh from 2006: https://adblockplus.org
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post


Here are a couple of interesting searches and what they suggest, but we know Google does no wrong[IMG]

 

We've had Android and iOS devices in our home since they first hit the market. After about 12 devices flowing through the home, we still have had no malware on either, and 3/5 of our users are kids. Maybe there is more malware on Android, but it's hardly a "thing," as I have developed on both platforms, and worked with many customers, and nobody has ever once mentioned anything about malware on a mobile device -- I only see it in the media and in forum posts from people parroting what they read elsewhere.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post
 

I will only be trusting one source for my health. My doctor. Not Apple, Not Google, Not Microsoft, Not wikipedia, Not WebMD, not some fancy 'wearable'. A trained living/breathing medical professional. 

El fin.

 

Does your doctor not use data? These types of devices actually can be useful. When I go in with a problem, my Dr. starts asking me questions, and the answers... are data. Automating the recording of data can be a huge help, like recording sleep hours, for instance.

post #77 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Then you'd better make sure that your hospital doesn't use Google Apps. 

Or ANY of your service providers use Gmail.

post #78 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

We've had Android and iOS devices in our home since they first hit the market. After about 12 devices flowing through the home, we still have had no malware on either, and 3/5 of our users are kids. Maybe there is more malware on Android, but it's hardly a "thing," as I have developed on both platforms, and worked with many customers, and nobody has ever once mentioned anything about malware on a mobile device -- I only see it in the media and in forum posts from people parroting what they read
How do you know? Have you constantly done scans of all your devices. Google admits the problem often but downplays and surpresses it in searches as I showed in my post. There have been several large wide dispersed exploits that Google didn't know was on their store for almost a year.
post #79 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

How do you know? Have you constantly done scans of all your devices. Google admits the problem often but downplays and surpresses it in searches as I showed in my post. There have been several large wide dispersed exploits that Google didn't know was on their store for almost a year.
Ummm. . . How is Google suppressing results when the first two results from a poorly constructed search gives you exactly what you wanted to find?
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+fine&oq=google+fine&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3093j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Then try adding an "s" to fine:
https://www.google.com/search?q=google+fine&oq=google+fine&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3093j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=google+fines

Yeah, it's so obvious that they're hiding results that cast Google in a less than desirable light. 1rolleyes.gif
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/16/14 at 8:50am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post


How do you know? Have you constantly done scans of all your devices.

 

Yes.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Google admits the problem often but downplays and surpresses it in searches as I showed in my post.
 
 
If I type "android malware" and I get "android market" until I get to the "l," then I get malware suggested. If I hit down and "Enter" at that point, I get sites discussing Android malware. They're clearly hiding something

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

There have been several large wide dispersed exploits that Google didn't know was on their store for almost a year.
 
We don't install ridiculous apps, nor follow ridiculous links from ridiculous sources. It's pretty straightforward.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google to launch Apple HealthKit competitor for Android at I/O conference - report
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google to launch Apple HealthKit competitor for Android at I/O conference - report