I doubt very much that the Apple Watch or any of Apples health care initiatives I am aware of are doing anything whatsoever to address the shortcomings in health care Steve Jobs was concerned with.
Personally, I think the biggest problem with health care is it is intensely distorted and corrupted by vested financial interest. It also seems to be incredibly doctrinal rather than evidence-based. For instance, in 2010 the largest meta-study of research into cholesterol and cardiovascular disease concluded there was no evidence that cholesterol was a causative agent of cardiovascular disease, yet the message to the public hasn't changed. Years after it was shown that ulcers were caused by infection, many doctors were still treating their patients with patent medicines urged on them by the traveling con-men of big pharma.
Sorry, OT but I agree. Pushing statins for example is more important these days that just about anything else despite the evidence you mention.
I hope Apple can push for technologies that help in all areas including better knowledge sharing. We are stuck in a 20th century system. One of the biggest hold ups these days in medical research is getting published, the need for peer reviews and publication by the official medical journals leading to duplication of effort and delays. In this day and age a new paradigm that is internet based for research results is needed that allows sharing and input world wide, and importantly protects the original authors. A Kickstarter for medical research if you will. Only then will we see the acceleration needed to keep up with the pace of current medical science.
I wonder if somewhere along the way, Steve vision of this watch pivoted and became something entirely different. The Apple Watch needed to solve a problem. If that was to fix healthcare, it should have focussed squarely on that and do it exceedingly well.
Instead, Apple has positioned this as a Watch as a do-it-all device running apps and notifications, even sending silly hand drawn messages. In doing so, it comes off as a nice to have, but certainly not a need to have device.
I wonder if somewhere along the way, Steve vision of this watch pivoted and became something entirely different. The Apple Watch needed to solve a problem. If that was to fix healthcare, it should have focussed squarely on that and do it exceedingly well.
Instead, Apple has positioned this as a Watch as a do-it-all device running apps and notifications, even sending silly hand drawn messages. In doing so, it comes off as a nice to have, but certainly not a need to have device.
Well, at least we finally know how Jony Ive was able to convince Jobs to let him make a watch product.
I doubt very much that the Apple Watch or any of Apples health care initiatives I am aware of are doing anything whatsoever to address the shortcomings in health care Steve Jobs was concerned with.
Personally, I think the biggest problem with health care is it is intensely distorted and corrupted by vested financial interest. It also seems to be incredibly doctrinal rather than evidence-based. For instance, in 2010 the largest meta-study of research into cholesterol and cardiovascular disease concluded there was no evidence that cholesterol was a causative agent of cardiovascular disease, yet the message to the public hasn't changed. Years after it was shown that ulcers were caused by infection, many doctors were still treating their patients with patent medicines urged on them by the traveling con-men of big pharma.
Sorry, OT but I agree. Pushing statins for example is more important these days that just about anything else despite the evidence you mention.
I hope Apple can push for technologies that help in all areas including better knowledge sharing. We are stuck in a 20th century system. One of the biggest hold ups these days in medical research is getting published, the need for peer reviews and publication by the official medical journals leading to duplication of effort and delays. In this day and age a new paradigm that is internet based for research results is needed that allows sharing and input world wide, and importantly protects the original authors. A Kickstarter for medical research if you will. Only then will we see the acceleration needed to keep up with the pace of current medical science.
Elsevier is a global-scale monster that would probably resist changing the paradigm. Once again, financial interest being made paramount above all others.
I wonder if somewhere along the way, Steve vision of this watch pivoted and became something entirely different. The Apple Watch needed to solve a problem. If that was to fix healthcare, it should have focussed squarely on that and do it exceedingly well.
Instead, Apple has positioned this as a Watch as a do-it-all device running apps and notifications, even sending silly hand drawn messages. In doing so, it comes off as a nice to have, but certainly not a need to have device.
As much as I say don't let the stock drive product decisions I don't think Apple could hold off on releasing the watch when they did. I don't think a lot of the health related stuff was/is ready for prime time. And Apple was never going to release a simple band that was a Fitbit knockoff. That would have been worse than releasing nothing at all. I think Watch will survive because it is more general purpose and not a niche product like Fitbit. The problem with Watch right now is its too slow. There's plenty Apple can do to make it a more compelling device without turning it into some kind of medical device. But it all starts with reducing latency.
I wonder if somewhere along the way, Steve vision of this watch pivoted and became something entirely different. The Apple Watch needed to solve a problem. If that was to fix healthcare, it should have focussed squarely on that and do it exceedingly well.
Instead, Apple has positioned this as a Watch as a do-it-all device running apps and notifications, even sending silly hand drawn messages. In doing so, it comes off as a nice to have, but certainly not a need to have device.
Well, at least we finally know how Jony Ive was able to convince Jobs to let him make a watch product.
I'm quite skeptical that Watch was borne out of Steve Jobs health issues. I think there are some assumptions being made not rooted in knowledge of the products' development. I'm even more skeptical that Apple was going down some medical device path but then decided to instead go down a general purpose path and focus on watch bands. My guess is a lot of this health related tech is in its infancy and not quite ready for prime time. Also Tim Cook said last year Apple isn't interested in things that will require FDA approval because it will slow down product development cycles.
I assume a lot of the health focused stuff is coming. Those kinds of things can't be rolled out prematurely. And anything that would require FDA approval will take even longer to come to market.
Not to mention the European Clinical Trials Directive and whatever Canada, Australia, China, and Japan equivalents are. Could take years to add anything significant to the Watch in the way of medical monitoring. The current heart rate monitor is just an approximation not actual medical data. There is a disclaimer on Apple's website. The Watch measures the heart rate through skin perfusion not blood in the capillaries or the heart's electrical system which makes me skeptical that it will ever be able to properly measure glucose or blood pressure.
But but but I thought everyone said the Watch is something Steve Jobs would never have released?
Makes you wonder if Jobs would have wanted such a focus on fashion and $300 bands, doesn't it? Where are all the monitoring advances not offered by fitness bands again?
I submit that the watch we got is very different from what Jobs envisioned. I think the real difference between Cook and Jobs is the reaction each had to adversity. When Cook met resistance with things like FDA approval of advanced sensors, instead of finding a way forward, he went with Plan B and turned the watch into a glorified FitBit. If Jobs had reacted this way when the iPhone was first developed we would have gotten a bag phone with an iPod coupon.
you must be new. original iPhone: no video camera, no copy & paste, couldn't do MMS. slow. expensive.
ipod had similar first gen complaints. macs too. they're kickass today. same pattern.
apples main watch bands are $50-150. the linked band is more but deservedly so. the Hermes bands are more but aren't pure Apple accessories.
I wonder if somewhere along the way, Steve vision of this watch pivoted and became something entirely different. The Apple Watch needed to solve a problem. If that was to fix healthcare, it should have focussed squarely on that and do it exceedingly well.
Instead, Apple has positioned this as a Watch as a do-it-all device running apps and notifications, even sending silly hand drawn messages. In doing so, it comes off as a nice to have, but certainly not a need to have device.
The Apple Watch was designed to appeal to a wide audience. Limiting it to fitness and health would limit the audience. As technology progresses new and smaller sensors will become available that will broaden the use of the watch even more, but we are limited right now. The watch is still in its infancy and has a lot of room to grow. Steve could have wished for the watch to do everything but if the tech wasn't there yet there would be nothing he could do.
I'm quite skeptical that Watch was borne out of Steve Jobs health issues. I think there are some assumptions being made not rooted in knowledge of the products' development. I'm even more skeptical that Apple was going down some medical device path but then decided to instead go down a general purpose path and focus on watch bands. My guess is a lot of this health related tech is in its infancy and not quite ready for prime time. Also Tim Cook said last year Apple isn't interested in things that will require FDA approval because it will slow down product development cycles.
It seems plainly obvious to me that the approximating heart rate and movement/calories etc alongside the Health app were to get the ball rolling on the health applications. The watch bands and fashion aspects are how you get people to buy in who wouldn't otherwise get into a smartwatch for the sheer utility of it. Otherwise not nearly as many people would've bought in already.
Of course the health related tech is in its infancy — otherwise we'd have it in all of our devices already. Things like the disabled O2 monitor in the current hardware speaks to the FDA and possibly accuracy issues.
These are not two disparate paths, they're clearly intertwined. You want people to want to wear something for its usefulness, not have it look like shit compared to an old-school dumbwatch (yes, watch bands matter, people!), while eventually providing game changing medical utility that many people will literally not want to live without. Meanwhile the activity features are already inspiring users to be more mindful of their health, which is amazing.
As a fashion accessory or an extension to the IPhone for busy Millennials wanting to check messages during meetings the IWatch was well designed.
As a way to improve our individual or collective health it is, at best, mediocre and nothing that Steve Jobs would have tolerated. While it is true that it is better than anything else out there (assuming you don't mind carrying an IPhone to make it work), it is still a fairly mediocre effort. Even the health app: it is effectively a black hole -- data goes in but nothing useable ever comes out of it. Jobs was first and foremost about product excellence in every way and in every detail. From a health standpoint, the AppleWatch, even though better than anything else out there, would still fail his criteria. Apple can do better. Much better.
But, with the improvements in OS3 -- especially opening up things like the watch's heart rate monitor to 3rd party apps -- I am hopeful that things will improve. For myself, I have been holding off getting a watch for just that reason -- my favorite health apps refused to develop for the watch because Apple had locked them out of the watch's primary features.
If Tim Cook focuses on product excellence for the Apple Watch it will succeed. If not, then not.
Comments
I hope Apple can push for technologies that help in all areas including better knowledge sharing. We are stuck in a 20th century system. One of the biggest hold ups these days in medical research is getting published, the need for peer reviews and publication by the official medical journals leading to duplication of effort and delays. In this day and age a new paradigm that is internet based for research results is needed that allows sharing and input world wide, and importantly protects the original authors. A Kickstarter for medical research if you will. Only then will we see the acceleration needed to keep up with the pace of current medical science.
The Apple Watch needed to solve a problem. If that was to fix healthcare, it should have focussed squarely on that and do it exceedingly well.
Instead, Apple has positioned this as a Watch as a do-it-all device running apps and notifications, even sending silly hand drawn messages.
In doing so, it comes off as a nice to have, but certainly not a need to have device.
ipod had similar first gen complaints. macs too. they're kickass today. same pattern.
apples main watch bands are $50-150. the linked band is more but deservedly so. the Hermes bands are more but aren't pure Apple accessories.
oh, and iPod socks.
Of course the health related tech is in its infancy — otherwise we'd have it in all of our devices already. Things like the disabled O2 monitor in the current hardware speaks to the FDA and possibly accuracy issues.
These are not two disparate paths, they're clearly intertwined. You want people to want to wear something for its usefulness, not have it look like shit compared to an old-school dumbwatch (yes, watch bands matter, people!), while eventually providing game changing medical utility that many people will literally not want to live without. Meanwhile the activity features are already inspiring users to be more mindful of their health, which is amazing.
As a fashion accessory or an extension to the IPhone for busy Millennials wanting to check messages during meetings the IWatch was well designed.
As a way to improve our individual or collective health it is, at best, mediocre and nothing that Steve Jobs would have tolerated. While it is true that it is better than anything else out there (assuming you don't mind carrying an IPhone to make it work), it is still a fairly mediocre effort. Even the health app: it is effectively a black hole -- data goes in but nothing useable ever comes out of it. Jobs was first and foremost about product excellence in every way and in every detail. From a health standpoint, the AppleWatch, even though better than anything else out there, would still fail his criteria. Apple can do better. Much better.
But, with the improvements in OS3 -- especially opening up things like the watch's heart rate monitor to 3rd party apps -- I am hopeful that things will improve. For myself, I have been holding off getting a watch for just that reason -- my favorite health apps refused to develop for the watch because Apple had locked them out of the watch's primary features.
If Tim Cook focuses on product excellence for the Apple Watch it will succeed. If not, then not.