I understand a) unlocked and b) precedence challenges.
What doesn't make sense to me is that the controlling app would need to be in the foreground.
If I can only tell siri to open the garage door (or change the temperature) by FIRST starting the garage door app or the thermostat app AND having it in the foreground I can just as well pushing the buttons there.
If however I'm driving home and tell Siri to change the temperature and a few minutes later to open the garage door - THAT makes sense.
Basically, what Homekit will do is link the functions of the various hardware contextually to the tasks that the user selects; similar to the way a user initially sets up Siri. Once all of the hardware is connected to the command structure, the user can then logically create macros of different functions relative to the user's life flow (similar to the way you would create macros within a program according to your work flow).
With Siri, Homekit will function exactly as you described:
"If however I'm driving home and tell Siri to change the temperature and a few minutes later to open the garage door - THAT makes sense."
That DOES make sense to me. Obviously Apple or Siri wouldn't know how to open the garage door.
But that is exactly my point: if Siri launches the App that means it did NOT have to be in the foreground when you asked Siri
There is already too much ambiguity when dealing with Siri.
I would imagine that we would need to tell Siri in advance that the next commands are specific to a HomeKit controller feature set so don't go off browsing the web if you don't at first understand what I want you to do. Having the controller app in the foreground is part of the process of isolating the command word set.
And then it makes sense - homekit creates a persistent, cross-device home configuration database. that contains my 'home structure' - and every aspect of the home has listeners and actions. That is how Siri knows what app to call.
So I think it's simply not true that the app(s) in case needs to be in the foreground
I also don't like the "app needs to be in the foreground" aspect.
What should happen is: I install a new "home automation app" when I open it it should say "Hey, I see that 'Other app xxx' is controlling your garage door, I can also control that, would you like this app to take control? YES NO"
Or even better, HomeKit should have a settings area(in the settings app), in that area there should be a list of all the "Keywords" like, Kitchen Lights, garage Door, etc... in each of these Keywords there should be a select (drop down) that I can choose from a list of apps that recognize this keyword, so I can set which apps handle which parts of my house.
THAT WAY, I can have one app/device control my TV while I have another control my lights, and I can tell Siri to dim the living-room lights and turn on the TV. And Siri would use the right apps for each task without me having to open multiple apps.
then I wouldn't have to have my app in the foreground.
Also I don't see why that when i am pressing the home button for Siri, my touch ID can't just scan my finger to make sure I am me?
Cerner, a competitor of Epic is developing and shipping a myriad of ios apps for their medical systems. They are native, quite good, and work on the phone and the tablets.
Cheers
I hope Cerner is able to break into the US market big time but Epic, for better or worse, has a huge market and have locked in the medical organizations with a multitude of specialized applications, just like Oracle has done. Epic also requires a huge investment and I doubt many of the larger health care organizations (she works for Providence, which has hospitals in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, southern California, and a few on Montana; I did see other Providence hospitals across the US but don't know if they are associated with the west coast Providence) would be willing to make a wholesale conversion to Cerner. Hopefully HealthKit will be the glue that binds all these systems together while also allowing Apple products to seamlessly interface with every EMR system.
As for your native apps, those are great but are they simply using a Citrix interface to get into the system? That's all Epic does, which means they're not using any of the capabilities of an iOS device other than the keyboard and running a client for remote access. I checked the iTunes App store and didn't find any reviews so I'm assuming some things based on web searches.
to everyone else: I should move these comments to a HealthKit comment page since this is for HomeKit. Sorry
And then it makes sense - homekit creates a persistent, cross-device home configuration database. that contains my 'home structure' - and every aspect of the home has listeners and actions. That is how Siri knows what app to call.
So I think it's simply not true that the app(s) in case needs to be in the foreground
Apple does sell to the masses but they are finally being recognized as an enterprise solution and that's where the big money for Apple will be. Even though my daughter hates dealing with Epic, it is the defacto standard for electronic health record software. Her hope is that once Apple and Epic work together, she can use something other than a heavy Windows laptop (enterprises keep old stuff for too long) or a marginally working terminal emulator on a Mac laptop or something that is read-only (Canto) on an iPad to quickly document patient activities. HealthKit might not go this far and Epic might not use everything that's available but I'm sure anything Epic uses it for will be for more than counting footsteps.
[right forum for this topic?] I worked for at least 3 of the 'logos' on the screen (and one named).
What HealthKit does is less about Health Professionals, and more about Health Consumers. I spent 7 years trying to get consumer health data collection to work with our EHR.
In today's world... it's not EPIC that is the problem... it's the 'P' in HIPAA. Every Clinic has their own Epic... none of them talk to each other. I need a PORTABLE health record. Or 100percent access to my health record... at my pharmacist, at my chiropractor, as I talk to my insurance company.... as I talk to the referred to specialist. (I argued in 1992 that there should be one online medical record for all US citizens, instead of one copy at every provider. This would not be held by an insurance company, but it was to be held by a 'trusted party' [we were arguing a non-profit organization funded in part by Medicare/HHS and insurance companies [because they paid $130+ every time you visited a 'new' physician for 'full medical history'.... because good medicine required it]]
(Anecdote: I went to my ENT Doc for a quick checkup, and he wasn't there that day... I was routed to a P.A. Procedure was that I had to fill out a NEW PATIENT INTAKE FORM.... I laughed and said all my information was in your system... they said, this was policy when you 'change' providers... my guess as someone who knows how insurance companies pay out... a patient filling out a paper form, [20 minutes free time], and 1 minute of a new provider reading it constitutes a $130 billable for 'new patient intake history review'... it's padding the billing).
So, I dont' care if Epic provides this to the MDs... and for what I know... they'll do it poorly (Epic changes medical practice process... for most for the worse). But having a Health App and an iCloud repository of my medical record that I can show my MD, minimally, and ideally, grant them download access (so when they can see from my Rx Hx I take my allergy medicine only Oct-Nov and April-June, and it's not chronic, that Brain MRI clinical note is available to them, if not the compressed Jpeg of the slice images... proving to everyone that my brain is in fact normal).
That's a great value to the masses. today. All Apple has to do is build in a Health Provider Identity Management system and a method for me to grant access to anyone on that list with a press of TouchID.
that Brain MRI clinical note is available to them, if not the compressed Jpeg of the slice images... proving to everyone that my brain is in fact normal).
That's a great value to the masses. today. All Apple has to do is build in a Health Provider Identity Management system and a method for me to grant access to anyone on that list with a press of TouchID.
1) The medical 3D imaging storage requirements are enormous. The images are not compressed. You can export compressed images but the full resolution images must be preserved. A single full cranium 3D set at 170 µm is around 3GB and each imaging manufacturer has their own export player application in order to share it.
2) I seriously doubt Apple wants to be the repository of the world's medical records. There is a reason that no single entity has step forward to do that. It is simply too massive of a project and the cost is too great. I still think that Apple would prefer to minimize their legal risk and responsibility. If they were presenting their products as professional medical devices, they would be diverging from their consumer focus. I don't think they want to get involved with life and death responsibilities.
Which is why there is still a question over the alleged iWatch. No question HealthKit is a great idea and if it can connect with and be the central hub to a myriads of health and fitness related apps and devices it will be huge. Whether Apple will produce and single wearable device to compliment the HealthKit platform is questionable.
Temp, HR, and Blood pressure are slam dunks for a wrist (or earbud) based sensor system. The latter two are important for longitudinal health monitoring, and the latter is something that most 'sports monitors' don't collect.
I understand the battle. Cerner was none too pleased to not be mentioned in Apple's presentation. Because unlike the competition, Cerner is using all objective-c, ui frameworks. So the apps are smooth, fast, and very complete. Many are in the pipeline.
But this is correct, HealthKit possible combined with crypto block chains could truly create the portable so many desire.
[right forum for this topic?] I worked for at least 3 of the 'logos' on the screen (and one named).
I apologized for being in the wrong forum two comments above yours. I just checked AI and the last HealthKit article was 6/10 (I don't count anything from Google). Maybe we need a place for a long term forum on HealthKit and HomeKit instead of commenting on each article that comes up.
1) The medical 3D imaging storage requirements are enormous. The images are not compressed. You can export compressed images but the full resolution images must be preserved. A single full cranium 3D set is around 2GB and each imaging manufacturer has their own export player application in order to share it.
2) I seriously doubt Apple wants to be the repository of the world's medical records. There is a reason that no single entity has step forward to do that. It is simply too massive of a project and the cost is too great. I still think that Apple would prefer to minimize their legal risk and responsibility. If they were presenting their products as professional medical devices, they would be diverging from their consumer focus. I don't think they want to get involved with life and death responsibilities.
1) the fact you have an MRI clinical note, and a overview JPEG (not diagnostic quality, just a reference and a checksum to make sure you request the right one, and the exact address to make that request. It took me 3 tries to get my MRI (just the clinical note) released to my new ENT. That's stupid.
Anecdote #2. Within multi-specialty clinics, Radiologists often don't allow surgeon's to see the 'real' MRI without them in the room, as they feel a surgeon are not trained to read them. I had to get a Radiologist to request my MRI above... not my ENT.
2) Apple won't be. YOU will be. It will be in YOUR iCloud. A file/folder in your cloud, just like a photo stream. Apple will have EULA as long as your arm. Apple gives you a set of keys, and a way of granting access to this special folder, but I'm responsible for it.
Red Herring Argument. No MD will make life or death decisions based solely on patient provided information... but they will make better decisions, if I 'don't forget' that I have a family history of Aortic Aneurysms and my father had a heart attack (I keep forgetting that... he was never hospitalized... it just showed up when he did a pre-surgical screening in a blood emzyme test).
And Longitudinal reviews become much clearer. I've been seen by 3 different cardiologists for a heart murmur over 10 years, and one in the middle said it WASN'T what the initial (and subsequent) diagnosis was/is.
And most importantly, for the simple blocking and tackling of healthcare, me being able to hand over my 'accurate/complete/up-to-date' medical record, especially lab notes and images, will lower health care costs, and avoid costly duplication, chasing down rabbit holes... or worse, miss something obvious.
I understand the battle. Cerner was none too pleased to not be mentioned in Apple's presentation. Because unlike the competition, Cerner is using all objective-c, ui frameworks. So the apps are smooth, fast, and very complete. Many are in the pipeline.
But this is correct, HealthKit possible combined with crypto block chains could truly create the portable so many desire.
most importantly, as noted by by reply to mstone... the 'portability' is managed and controlled by the patient, not by apple, not by Cerner/Epic/ or worse, Insurance companies, and not by the doctor's office.
How does Apple make money off HomeKit and HealthKit? Is it just via more iPhone sales? Or do they get a cut of sales of 3rd party devices that utilize their protocols/API's?
How does Apple make money off HomeKit and HealthKit? Is it just via more iPhone sales? Or do they get a cut of sales of 3rd party devices that utilize their protocols/API's?
There is no API licensing that I know of, only the licensing to use their 30-pin and Lightning port adapters. I think it just comes down to making their products even more indispensable.
I think a silent halo effect will be Continuity /Handoff allowing Macs and iPhones to work more seamlessly together will could result in more Mac sales if people get to see how these features make their UX better and easier.
There is no API licensing that I know of, only the licensing to use their 30-pin and Lightning port adapters. I think it just comes down to making their products even more indispensable.
edit: OK, so they do charge for the MFi Program licenses which, currently, includes HomeKit in the listing. I didn't see HealthKit. They also recently lowered the price according to an AI article from this year.
edit2: So BT devices don't have to sign up for the program and therefore pay Apple. It's only devices that would directly connect to the iDevice. Makes sense.
Who does not need to join the MFi Program
I want to develop an accessory that communicates with an Apple device using only Bluetooth Low Energy. Do I need to join the MFi Program?
No. Accessories which connect to an Apple device using only Bluetooth Low Energy/BTLE/Bluetooth 4.0 or standard Bluetooth profiles supported by iOS are not part of the MFi Program.
... leveraging the ability of the iOS voice-driven personal assistant Siri to allow users to control the temperature, lights, locks and other accessories in a modern "smart home."
Great. But what I really want is far simpler: a secure BTLE hotel door key feature.
Unlocks when I walk up to the door and touch the handle.
Locks when the door is closed and I start walking down the hallway.
Actually, house door locks could work the same way. No need to talk to Siri for that.
Comments
That DOES make sense to me. Obviously Apple or Siri wouldn't know how to open the garage door.
But that is exactly my point: if Siri launches the App that means it did NOT have to be in the foreground when you asked Siri
I understand a) unlocked and b) precedence challenges.
What doesn't make sense to me is that the controlling app would need to be in the foreground.
If I can only tell siri to open the garage door (or change the temperature) by FIRST starting the garage door app or the thermostat app AND having it in the foreground I can just as well pushing the buttons there.
If however I'm driving home and tell Siri to change the temperature and a few minutes later to open the garage door - THAT makes sense.
Basically, what Homekit will do is link the functions of the various hardware contextually to the tasks that the user selects; similar to the way a user initially sets up Siri. Once all of the hardware is connected to the command structure, the user can then logically create macros of different functions relative to the user's life flow (similar to the way you would create macros within a program according to your work flow).
With Siri, Homekit will function exactly as you described:
"If however I'm driving home and tell Siri to change the temperature and a few minutes later to open the garage door - THAT makes sense."
That DOES make sense to me. Obviously Apple or Siri wouldn't know how to open the garage door.
But that is exactly my point: if Siri launches the App that means it did NOT have to be in the foreground when you asked Siri
There is already too much ambiguity when dealing with Siri.
I would imagine that we would need to tell Siri in advance that the next commands are specific to a HomeKit controller feature set so don't go off browsing the web if you don't at first understand what I want you to do. Having the controller app in the foreground is part of the process of isolating the command word set.
Ok - so here is link to the API
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/HomeKit/Reference/HomeKit_Framework/index.html
And then it makes sense - homekit creates a persistent, cross-device home configuration database. that contains my 'home structure' - and every aspect of the home has listeners and actions. That is how Siri knows what app to call.
So I think it's simply not true that the app(s) in case needs to be in the foreground
What should happen is: I install a new "home automation app" when I open it it should say
"Hey, I see that 'Other app xxx' is controlling your garage door, I can also control that, would you like this app to take control? YES NO"
Or even better, HomeKit should have a settings area(in the settings app), in that area there should be a list of all the "Keywords" like, Kitchen Lights, garage Door, etc...
in each of these Keywords there should be a select (drop down) that I can choose from a list of apps that recognize this keyword, so I can set which apps handle which parts of my house.
THAT WAY, I can have one app/device control my TV while I have another control my lights, and I can tell Siri to dim the living-room lights and turn on the TV. And Siri would use the right apps for each task without me having to open multiple apps.
then I wouldn't have to have my app in the foreground.
Also I don't see why that when i am pressing the home button for Siri, my touch ID can't just scan my finger to make sure I am me?
just some thoughts....
Rob53:
Cerner, a competitor of Epic is developing and shipping a myriad of ios apps for their medical systems. They are native, quite good, and work on the phone and the tablets.
Cheers
I hope Cerner is able to break into the US market big time but Epic, for better or worse, has a huge market and have locked in the medical organizations with a multitude of specialized applications, just like Oracle has done. Epic also requires a huge investment and I doubt many of the larger health care organizations (she works for Providence, which has hospitals in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, southern California, and a few on Montana; I did see other Providence hospitals across the US but don't know if they are associated with the west coast Providence) would be willing to make a wholesale conversion to Cerner. Hopefully HealthKit will be the glue that binds all these systems together while also allowing Apple products to seamlessly interface with every EMR system.
As for your native apps, those are great but are they simply using a Citrix interface to get into the system? That's all Epic does, which means they're not using any of the capabilities of an iOS device other than the keyboard and running a client for remote access. I checked the iTunes App store and didn't find any reviews so I'm assuming some things based on web searches.
to everyone else: I should move these comments to a HealthKit comment page since this is for HomeKit. Sorry
Ok - so here is link to the API
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/HomeKit/Reference/HomeKit_Framework/index.html
And then it makes sense - homekit creates a persistent, cross-device home configuration database. that contains my 'home structure' - and every aspect of the home has listeners and actions. That is how Siri knows what app to call.
So I think it's simply not true that the app(s) in case needs to be in the foreground
Exactly, if this is true, then ignore my rant
Apple does sell to the masses but they are finally being recognized as an enterprise solution and that's where the big money for Apple will be. Even though my daughter hates dealing with Epic, it is the defacto standard for electronic health record software. Her hope is that once Apple and Epic work together, she can use something other than a heavy Windows laptop (enterprises keep old stuff for too long) or a marginally working terminal emulator on a Mac laptop or something that is read-only (Canto) on an iPad to quickly document patient activities. HealthKit might not go this far and Epic might not use everything that's available but I'm sure anything Epic uses it for will be for more than counting footsteps.
[right forum for this topic?] I worked for at least 3 of the 'logos' on the screen (and one named).
What HealthKit does is less about Health Professionals, and more about Health Consumers. I spent 7 years trying to get consumer health data collection to work with our EHR.
In today's world... it's not EPIC that is the problem... it's the 'P' in HIPAA. Every Clinic has their own Epic... none of them talk to each other. I need a PORTABLE health record. Or 100percent access to my health record... at my pharmacist, at my chiropractor, as I talk to my insurance company.... as I talk to the referred to specialist. (I argued in 1992 that there should be one online medical record for all US citizens, instead of one copy at every provider. This would not be held by an insurance company, but it was to be held by a 'trusted party' [we were arguing a non-profit organization funded in part by Medicare/HHS and insurance companies [because they paid $130+ every time you visited a 'new' physician for 'full medical history'.... because good medicine required it]]
(Anecdote: I went to my ENT Doc for a quick checkup, and he wasn't there that day... I was routed to a P.A. Procedure was that I had to fill out a NEW PATIENT INTAKE FORM.... I laughed and said all my information was in your system... they said, this was policy when you 'change' providers... my guess as someone who knows how insurance companies pay out... a patient filling out a paper form, [20 minutes free time], and 1 minute of a new provider reading it constitutes a $130 billable for 'new patient intake history review'... it's padding the billing).
So, I dont' care if Epic provides this to the MDs... and for what I know... they'll do it poorly (Epic changes medical practice process... for most for the worse). But having a Health App and an iCloud repository of my medical record that I can show my MD, minimally, and ideally, grant them download access (so when they can see from my Rx Hx I take my allergy medicine only Oct-Nov and April-June, and it's not chronic, that Brain MRI clinical note is available to them, if not the compressed Jpeg of the slice images... proving to everyone that my brain is in fact normal).
That's a great value to the masses. today. All Apple has to do is build in a Health Provider Identity Management system and a method for me to grant access to anyone on that list with a press of TouchID.
That's a great value to the masses. today. All Apple has to do is build in a Health Provider Identity Management system and a method for me to grant access to anyone on that list with a press of TouchID.
1) The medical 3D imaging storage requirements are enormous. The images are not compressed. You can export compressed images but the full resolution images must be preserved. A single full cranium 3D set at 170 µm is around 3GB and each imaging manufacturer has their own export player application in order to share it.
2) I seriously doubt Apple wants to be the repository of the world's medical records. There is a reason that no single entity has step forward to do that. It is simply too massive of a project and the cost is too great. I still think that Apple would prefer to minimize their legal risk and responsibility. If they were presenting their products as professional medical devices, they would be diverging from their consumer focus. I don't think they want to get involved with life and death responsibilities.
Which is why there is still a question over the alleged iWatch. No question HealthKit is a great idea and if it can connect with and be the central hub to a myriads of health and fitness related apps and devices it will be huge. Whether Apple will produce and single wearable device to compliment the HealthKit platform is questionable.
Temp, HR, and Blood pressure are slam dunks for a wrist (or earbud) based sensor system. The latter two are important for longitudinal health monitoring, and the latter is something that most 'sports monitors' don't collect.
The question will be
Blood Glucose [for 'casual monitoring this may work... (http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/deviceapprovalsandclearances/recently-approveddevices/ucm083294.htm)
but it's probably an expensive patent]
Pulse Ox (COPD) [possible]
EKG [unlikely for a medically significant reading... needs several contact points beyond the left/right arm]
Blood Glucose [still not FDA approved for a simple skin contact]
If Blood Sugar and Blood Pressure are covered by an Apple device, you've got a hit, even if for 'advisory' purposes, not diagnostic.
I understand the battle. Cerner was none too pleased to not be mentioned in Apple's presentation. Because unlike the competition, Cerner is using all objective-c, ui frameworks. So the apps are smooth, fast, and very complete. Many are in the pipeline.
But this is correct, HealthKit possible combined with crypto block chains could truly create the portable so many desire.
"Why has the Smith's garage door been opening and closing non-stop the entire week they've been on vacation?"
[right forum for this topic?] I worked for at least 3 of the 'logos' on the screen (and one named).
I apologized for being in the wrong forum two comments above yours. I just checked AI and the last HealthKit article was 6/10 (I don't count anything from Google). Maybe we need a place for a long term forum on HealthKit and HomeKit instead of commenting on each article that comes up.
1) The medical 3D imaging storage requirements are enormous. The images are not compressed. You can export compressed images but the full resolution images must be preserved. A single full cranium 3D set is around 2GB and each imaging manufacturer has their own export player application in order to share it.
2) I seriously doubt Apple wants to be the repository of the world's medical records. There is a reason that no single entity has step forward to do that. It is simply too massive of a project and the cost is too great. I still think that Apple would prefer to minimize their legal risk and responsibility. If they were presenting their products as professional medical devices, they would be diverging from their consumer focus. I don't think they want to get involved with life and death responsibilities.
1) the fact you have an MRI clinical note, and a overview JPEG (not diagnostic quality, just a reference and a checksum to make sure you request the right one, and the exact address to make that request. It took me 3 tries to get my MRI (just the clinical note) released to my new ENT. That's stupid.
Anecdote #2. Within multi-specialty clinics, Radiologists often don't allow surgeon's to see the 'real' MRI without them in the room, as they feel a surgeon are not trained to read them. I had to get a Radiologist to request my MRI above... not my ENT.
2) Apple won't be. YOU will be. It will be in YOUR iCloud. A file/folder in your cloud, just like a photo stream. Apple will have EULA as long as your arm. Apple gives you a set of keys, and a way of granting access to this special folder, but I'm responsible for it.
Red Herring Argument. No MD will make life or death decisions based solely on patient provided information... but they will make better decisions, if I 'don't forget' that I have a family history of Aortic Aneurysms and my father had a heart attack (I keep forgetting that... he was never hospitalized... it just showed up when he did a pre-surgical screening in a blood emzyme test).
And Longitudinal reviews become much clearer. I've been seen by 3 different cardiologists for a heart murmur over 10 years, and one in the middle said it WASN'T what the initial (and subsequent) diagnosis was/is.
And most importantly, for the simple blocking and tackling of healthcare, me being able to hand over my 'accurate/complete/up-to-date' medical record, especially lab notes and images, will lower health care costs, and avoid costly duplication, chasing down rabbit holes... or worse, miss something obvious.
I understand the battle. Cerner was none too pleased to not be mentioned in Apple's presentation. Because unlike the competition, Cerner is using all objective-c, ui frameworks. So the apps are smooth, fast, and very complete. Many are in the pipeline.
But this is correct, HealthKit possible combined with crypto block chains could truly create the portable so many desire.
most importantly, as noted by by reply to mstone... the 'portability' is managed and controlled by the patient, not by apple, not by Cerner/Epic/ or worse, Insurance companies, and not by the doctor's office.
There is no API licensing that I know of, only the licensing to use their 30-pin and Lightning port adapters. I think it just comes down to making their products even more indispensable.
I think a silent halo effect will be Continuity /Handoff allowing Macs and iPhones to work more seamlessly together will could result in more Mac sales if people get to see how these features make their UX better and easier.
There is no API licensing that I know of, only the licensing to use their 30-pin and Lightning port adapters. I think it just comes down to making their products even more indispensable.
Don't they charge for "Made for iOS" branding ?
Good question.
edit: OK, so they do charge for the MFi Program licenses which, currently, includes HomeKit in the listing. I didn't see HealthKit. They also recently lowered the price according to an AI article from this year.
edit2: So BT devices don't have to sign up for the program and therefore pay Apple. It's only devices that would directly connect to the iDevice. Makes sense.
... leveraging the ability of the iOS voice-driven personal assistant Siri to allow users to control the temperature, lights, locks and other accessories in a modern "smart home."
Great. But what I really want is far simpler: a secure BTLE hotel door key feature.
Unlocks when I walk up to the door and touch the handle.
Locks when the door is closed and I start walking down the hallway.
Actually, house door locks could work the same way. No need to talk to Siri for that.