Rumor: Next-gen Apple Watch may support glucose monitoring, 'smart' bands

Posted:
in Apple Watch
Future Apple Watch models will reportedly include support for glucose monitoring, as well as "smart watch bands" that should expand features without requiring people to buy an entirely new device.




The glucose technology will likely be non-invasive, BGR suggested on Monday, citing an anonymous source. Glucose levels are typically monitored by collecting blood, but that would be impractical on a wrist-worn device, and previous reports have indicated that Apple is working on non-invasive methods.

Glucose monitoring could potentially be built into a smart band, BGR speculated, allowing Apple to get U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval without exposing new Watch designs. Other hypothetical bands might add options like extra battery life or even a camera.

The source added that Apple has "identified the right part of the body," and that "there's so much more they can and intend to do with the Watch." The company has allegedly hired some 200 PhDs in the past year, hoping to improve the Watch's health functions.

Apple has been keen to market the Apple Watch Series 2 as a fitness device, since it's now fully waterproof and supports GPS for distance-based activities like running. Its health tracking can only operate off of motion and heart rate, however.

The company is expected to launch a "Series 3" Watch later this year. Few other features have been rumored, though others might include sleep tracking or even LTE support that was once rumored for the Series 2.
albegarc
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,022member
    I think this would be extremely difficult to do.

    However, it would be a game changer if they were successful. It could easily be a $100 billion business for Apple if they made non-invasive monitoring.
    edited May 2017 stanhopestanthemanwatto_cobratmayalbegarc
  • Reply 2 of 35
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,495member
    If Apple has somehow ironed-out the obstacles of non-invasive glucose monitoring, it will be huge.  I'm sure Apple has patented the hell out of everything and anything regrind this process because one can be certain that the Samsung's of the world will do everything they can to rip-off Apple's IP and claim it was the "obvious next step".

    If this is indeed true, I myself will finally have the excuse to buy an Apple Watch.  I'm really psyched about what Apple is doing in this area.  

    You don't hear anything remotely similar with that Android watch trash.
    stanhopewatto_cobraalbegarc
  • Reply 3 of 35
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,007member
    Again, an anonymous source causing people to wait for the next version of a product, driving down Apple's sales. 

    Is there any way to force news agencies, like BGR, to divulge their informants? I know the answer but it makes no sense to continue giving anonymous informants all this free exposure. Of course something like this would be fantastic but where is the transparency in reporting? Who gave BGR this information?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 35
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,770member
    I think this would be extremely difficult to do.

    However, it would be a game changer if they were successful. It could easily be a $100 billion business for Apple if they made non-invasive monitoring.
    There are already non-invasive glucose monitoring devices but they are only viable in the web of skin between the thumb and forefinger, for example, because they need a light or a electromagnetic emitter and a receiver on the opposite sides to actually look at the blood, unlike the the pulse monitor that is only looking at change in size of the blood vessel itself. It could perhaps also work on an earlobe because they may be thin enough for the signal to pass through as well, which conceivably could be built into some BlueTooth earbuds and communicate to the Apple Watch.
    edited May 2017
  • Reply 5 of 35
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 3,825member
    No way Apple could do this without FDA approval could they?
  • Reply 6 of 35
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,048member
    Sorry to be off-topic on the glucose monitoring front, but the back plate of my Watch (the one with the sensors) has started to fall off! Essentially, it sticks to the charger magnet when I slide it off in the mornings. I can (sort of) stick it back in, but the Watch stays locked all the time. 

    Anyone else having this issue!?
  • Reply 7 of 35
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,770member
    No way Apple could do this without FDA approval could they?
    I was searching around for that answer but found nothing conclusive. It appears that manufacturers do need to be listed with the FDA but perhaps the devices do not need actual approval. The reason they need to be listed is in case there are new regulations the FDA can contact the manufacturer as they did recently concerning an outbreak of hepatitis among people who were sharing the devices.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,789member
    No way Apple could do this without FDA approval could they?
    They could be getting FDA approval and the FDA just isn't saying anything...just like how Apple has the FCC hold back things as to not leak products before they're announced. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 35
    19831983 Posts: 1,158member
    Couldn't current Watch's theoretically use smart bands due to that hidden port within one of case strap lugs?
    edited May 2017 watto_cobraGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 10 of 35
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    None of this is new information. And if there's any company who can get the FDA to keep things hush during approval it's the bank of Apple.
    edited May 2017 calipscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 35
    "The glucose technology will likely be non-invasive, BGR suggested on Monday, citing an anonymous source. 'Because, like, a watch that stabs you would be pretty dumb,' the source stated."
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 35
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,495member
    No way Apple could do this without FDA approval could they?
    I recall an article way back about the wristbands being put under FDA's list vs. the actual watch itself.  That way, the watch is just a plug-in for whatever medical device it is connected to and doesn't have to go through FDA approval, only the wristband.

    patchythepiratewatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 35
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,291member
    As others have already said, huge if real. But the IF is really big. 

    The smartband thing was rumored when the AW debuted, as there is a maintenance port. Hard to envision how a band would interface with that.

    There are times when it would be handy to shoot a rudimentary snapshot right from a watch. Not really sure how popular that would be though; or even how it could be implemented. There is a 3rd party ads with a camera though. It looks kinda...rough.

    Hope this rumor is true though. It'd be yooge.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    sunman42sunman42 Posts: 68member
    Here's hoping that "smart" bans make it possible for people to wear their Watches on the inside of their wrists while maintaining functionality.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    anomeanome Posts: 1,258member

    In order for the watch to have any diagnostic or health related function, it will probably need FDA approval (or similar in overseas markets), but if they sell it just as a guide, and claim it has no diagnostic value, then they may not need approval, provided it's not invasive in any way.

    I don't think Apple are interested in having it just as a guide. I think they want to claim it as a diagnostic tool, and have the data accessed in HealthKit for proper medical purposes, and so I expect they will put it through FDA approval. There's also the risk that, if they market it just as a guide the FDA will decide it is a diagnostic tool, or that it might easily be mistaken for one, and insist on approval anyway. So, from Apple's point of view, probably best to get approval straight off.

    Some other companies, however, would probably chance their arm to bypass FDA approval. And might even get away with it.

    cali
  • Reply 16 of 35
    kamiltonkamilton Posts: 259member
    Apple will do it, but it's probably 24 months out.  Massive market.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 35
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 257member
    This website is quoting/referring to something from BGR? AI just lost a ton of credibility by referencing that slime bucket of lies and BS known as BGR. To say that place is a legit tech site is like saying Bernie Madoff wasn't a thief.
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 19 of 35
    slprescottslprescott Posts: 752member
    Will "Series-0 Aluminum" owners upgrade to "Series-3 Stainless Steel"?

    Many people -- including me -- purchased the lowest-priced Series 0 as an experiment, since we didn't know (a) if we'd like it, and (b) if the Wearables category would survive.  The answer is 'yes' to both questions, so those early adopters may upgrade to a more expensive model during their refresh cycle.
    edited May 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 35
    acejax805acejax805 Posts: 63member
    Sorry to be off-topic on the glucose monitoring front, but the back plate of my Watch (the one with the sensors) has started to fall off! Essentially, it sticks to the charger magnet when I slide it off in the mornings. I can (sort of) stick it back in, but the Watch stays locked all the time. 

    Anyone else having this issue!?
    I recommend taking it in to an Apple Store for repair
    caliwatto_cobrachia
Sign In or Register to comment.