Apple stores now sell Spire Health Tags for holistic self quantification

Posted:
in General Discussion
Apple retail channels this week started sales of Spire Health Tags, small, machine-washable devices with a long battery life that sticks to a user's clothes to monitor heart rate and track steps, breathing, stress levels and sleep patterns.

Spire Health Tag


Spire, a company focused on the development and sale of health tracking devices, claims its Health Tags are the easiest way to monitor and manage sleep, stress and activity.

The small, gray devices are thin enough to fit on the inside of most clothing items, including bras, underwear, pants and pajamas. An optical sensor embedded on one side of each Health Tag makes contact with a user's skin to monitor heart rate, while motion sensors within track a variety of metrics.

An accompanying iOS app ingests and translates raw data from the tracker to inform users of daily activity and stress levels, sleep quality, breathing and more. Notably, the hardware/software combo identifies moments of tension by tracking breath patterns. Users are informed of heightened stress levels and presented with tension-reducing breathing exercises.

"Continuous health data will revolutionize health and wellness globally, but early incarnations have been hampered by poor user experiences and a focus on the hardware over the outcomes that the hardware can create," Spire founder Jonathan Palley told TechCrunch. "By making the device disappear', we believe Health Tag is the first product to unlock the potential."

Unlike other health trackers, Apple Watch included, Spire's product is designed to be unobtrusive. The company claims users will not feel the tags during everyday use, a necessary feature as they are designed as a semi-permanent solution.

Tags are applied to clothes via an adhesive that sets over time, meaning they effectively become part of a host garment. The tags are hypoallergenic, washer and dryer safe, and include a battery that lasts a year and half.

Health Tags build on Spire's first product, the Stone, which launched in 2015 with the promise of tracking stress levels by measuring breathing patterns and activity.

Apple is selling Health Tags in packs of three, six or eight for $130, $230 and $300, respectively. Spire also sells the tags directly through its website, with a single tracker going for $50 and packs of three and eight sold at the same prices offered by Apple. Spire is currently running a promotion, however, that takes $100 off an eight-pack, or $30 off a three-pack, when purchased with a $10 per month Spire+ membership. The membership includes free replacement Health Tags when batteries run out, 50 percent off additional Health Tags at $25 each and personalized health reports.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 

    edited September 2018 hagarapplehead
  • Reply 2 of 13
    Wow, first I had heard of this.  Thanks for sharing the link...
    applehead
  • Reply 3 of 13
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,556member
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    For something this big, Apple Australia should not have been allowed to run something that was clearly a scam (cured a brain tumour through healthy eating?? SERIOUSLY??) without clearance from the mother ship. 

    The fact she fooled a lot of people is no excuse. Through Apple’s Health Division, Apple Australia has access to enough medical staff to fill a large hospital.  A phone call? An email? 

    But then when it became CLEAR that they’d been had, Team Australia buried their heads and hoped it would be okay. 

    Someone needs to have a really close at the team involved in this sh*tshow. I know that the senior management team cannot watch every aspect of the company, but I’m surprised no one saw this promotion and thought, “Wwwaaaaaaiiit a minute.”

    You know what I suspect part of the problem is?

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    edited September 2018 oodlumjony0
  • Reply 4 of 13
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    For something this big, Apple Australia should not have been allowed to run something that was clearly a scam (cured a brain tumour through healthy eating?? SERIOUSLY??) without clearance from the mother ship. 

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Have she completely fraud the diagnose or she simply can not prove she was diagnosed properly? Not clear for me from article.

    And to desire. Evcerything is possible. It is possibel to climb Mount Everest. But just few manage that.

  • Reply 5 of 13
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    .....

    You know what I suspect part of the problem is?

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Actually, it is possible -- particularly for certain types of cancer.  
    Cancer, like infection, is continuously forming in your body but usually, the body identifies it, combats it and destroys it before it gets out of control.  But typically, we only call it "cancer" when a tumor grows large enough that medical science can identify it.  But that tumor typically has been growing for years and even decades before it grows large enough to be seen on a diagnostic test.

    While treating cancer with healthy eating, exercise and stress reduction has no guarantee of success in defeating a cancer that is raging out of control neither does medical treatment.

    The short answer:   They are both effective and, quite often, they both work better together.  But that also depends on the type of cancer.   For instance, lung cancer, colon cancer and breast & prostate cancers seem to be more closely linked to lifestyle factors than, say, brain, pancreatic or lymphomic cancers.

    Two rather simplistic examples:
    A person with lung cancer has a much better chance of survival if he stops smoking.
    Or, since the World Health Organization identified processed meats as a carcinogen, a person with colon cancer has a better chance of survival if he stops eating hot dogs, pepperoni and bacon.
    And, both have a better chance of never having contracted their cancers if they never indulged in either smoking or eating processed meats.
    hammeroftruth
  • Reply 6 of 13
    frantisek said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    For something this big, Apple Australia should not have been allowed to run something that was clearly a scam (cured a brain tumour through healthy eating?? SERIOUSLY??) without clearance from the mother ship. 

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Have she completely fraud the diagnose or she simply can not prove she was diagnosed properly? Not clear for me from article.

    And to desire. Evcerything is possible. It is possibel to climb Mount Everest. But just few manage that.


     "In late April 2015, Gibson gave an interview to The Australian Women's Weekly, in which she admitted to having fabricated all her cancer claims. Gibson attributed her lying to her childhood upbringing"

    Not only did she never have cancer, she raised over $300k for "charity" through the app and kept it for herself.

    "in March 2015, the parents of a young child suffering from brain cancer, whom Gibson had befriended, came forward to report that they had been unaware that Gibson had earlier been claiming to be fundraising for their child's treatment on their behalf. The family stated they had not known about Gibson's claim to be charity fundraising on behalf of the child, and the family had never received any funds from her or The Whole Pantry. The family suspected Gibson had been using information gleaned from the family's experiences to underpin her own claims to having brain cancer."

    That's just scratching the surface:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson
    edited September 2018
  • Reply 7 of 13
    How do you measure stress?! "We collect a lot of data from bunch sensors and we'll tell you when you're stressed, without giving you any explanation of how we get to that conclusion". Funny how this companies come and sell you wellness and happiness with no logical analysis on how they get to that conclusion. Just like the sleeping apps that tell you that your are not sleeping hard enough! Everybody is different, in different environments and circumstances, and stress is not inherently bad neither. This smells like BS, probably catering to the hypochondriac market.
  • Reply 8 of 13
    oodlum said:
    frantisek said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    For something this big, Apple Australia should not have been allowed to run something that was clearly a scam (cured a brain tumour through healthy eating?? SERIOUSLY??) without clearance from the mother ship. 

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Have she completely fraud the diagnose or she simply can not prove she was diagnosed properly? Not clear for me from article.

    And to desire. Evcerything is possible. It is possibel to climb Mount Everest. But just few manage that.


     "In late April 2015, Gibson gave an interview to The Australian Women's Weekly, in which she admitted to having fabricated all her cancer claims. Gibson attributed her lying to her childhood upbringing"

    Not only did she never have cancer, she raised over $300k for "charity" through the app and kept it for herself.

    "in March 2015, the parents of a young child suffering from brain cancer, whom Gibson had befriended, came forward to report that they had been unaware that Gibson had earlier been claiming to be fundraising for their child's treatment on their behalf. The family stated they had not known about Gibson's claim to be charity fundraising on behalf of the child, and the family had never received any funds from her or The Whole Pantry. The family suspected Gibson had been using information gleaned from the family's experiences to underpin her own claims to having brain cancer."

    That's just scratching the surface:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Gibson
    With a name like Gibson, there might be a crazy gene involved. 
  • Reply 9 of 13
    The spire rep was at my local Apple Store and I took a pic of him speaking to a potential customer:


  • Reply 10 of 13
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,556member
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    .....

    You know what I suspect part of the problem is?

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Actually, it is possible -- particularly for certain types of cancer.  
    Cancer, like infection, is continuously forming in your body but usually, the body identifies it, combats it and destroys it before it gets out of control.  But typically, we only call it "cancer" when a tumor grows large enough that medical science can identify it.  But that tumor typically has been growing for years and even decades before it grows large enough to be seen on a diagnostic test.

    While treating cancer with healthy eating, exercise and stress reduction has no guarantee of success in defeating a cancer that is raging out of control neither does medical treatment.

    The short answer:   They are both effective and, quite often, they both work better together.  But that also depends on the type of cancer.   For instance, lung cancer, colon cancer and breast & prostate cancers seem to be more closely linked to lifestyle factors than, say, brain, pancreatic or lymphomic cancers.

    Two rather simplistic examples:
    A person with lung cancer has a much better chance of survival if he stops smoking.
    Or, since the World Health Organization identified processed meats as a carcinogen, a person with colon cancer has a better chance of survival if he stops eating hot dogs, pepperoni and bacon.
    And, both have a better chance of never having contracted their cancers if they never indulged in either smoking or eating processed meats.
    The woman said she was cured. There is a world of difference between “increasing your chances of survival” and being cured. 

    Increasing my chances of survival = wearing a seatbelt. 
    Surviving = not driving my car off the cliff.

    What cures cancer is surgery and/or huge wodges of poisonous chemicals and/or radiation. 
  • Reply 11 of 13
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    .....

    You know what I suspect part of the problem is?

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Actually, it is possible -- particularly for certain types of cancer.  
    Cancer, like infection, is continuously forming in your body but usually, the body identifies it, combats it and destroys it before it gets out of control.  But typically, we only call it "cancer" when a tumor grows large enough that medical science can identify it.  But that tumor typically has been growing for years and even decades before it grows large enough to be seen on a diagnostic test.

    While treating cancer with healthy eating, exercise and stress reduction has no guarantee of success in defeating a cancer that is raging out of control neither does medical treatment.

    The short answer:   They are both effective and, quite often, they both work better together.  But that also depends on the type of cancer.   For instance, lung cancer, colon cancer and breast & prostate cancers seem to be more closely linked to lifestyle factors than, say, brain, pancreatic or lymphomic cancers.

    Two rather simplistic examples:
    A person with lung cancer has a much better chance of survival if he stops smoking.
    Or, since the World Health Organization identified processed meats as a carcinogen, a person with colon cancer has a better chance of survival if he stops eating hot dogs, pepperoni and bacon.
    And, both have a better chance of never having contracted their cancers if they never indulged in either smoking or eating processed meats.
    The woman said she was cured. There is a world of difference between “increasing your chances of survival” and being cured. 

    Increasing my chances of survival = wearing a seatbelt. 
    Surviving = not driving my car off the cliff.

    What cures cancer is surgery and/or huge wodges of poisonous chemicals and/or radiation. 
    I wasn't talking about her.   Obviously she was a scam artist.
    I was responding to the post suggesting that diet / lifestyle have no impact on cancer.
    And, if you believe the ONLY treatment for cancer lies in the doctor's office, then you need to reread my post again.   And, if you still believe that only a doctor can impact cancer, then you owe it to yourself to do a little research into the matter.
    edited September 2018
  • Reply 12 of 13
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,556member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    .....

    You know what I suspect part of the problem is?

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Actually, it is possible -- particularly for certain types of cancer.  
    Cancer, like infection, is continuously forming in your body but usually, the body identifies it, combats it and destroys it before it gets out of control.  But typically, we only call it "cancer" when a tumor grows large enough that medical science can identify it.  But that tumor typically has been growing for years and even decades before it grows large enough to be seen on a diagnostic test.

    While treating cancer with healthy eating, exercise and stress reduction has no guarantee of success in defeating a cancer that is raging out of control neither does medical treatment.

    The short answer:   They are both effective and, quite often, they both work better together.  But that also depends on the type of cancer.   For instance, lung cancer, colon cancer and breast & prostate cancers seem to be more closely linked to lifestyle factors than, say, brain, pancreatic or lymphomic cancers.

    Two rather simplistic examples:
    A person with lung cancer has a much better chance of survival if he stops smoking.
    Or, since the World Health Organization identified processed meats as a carcinogen, a person with colon cancer has a better chance of survival if he stops eating hot dogs, pepperoni and bacon.
    And, both have a better chance of never having contracted their cancers if they never indulged in either smoking or eating processed meats.
    The woman said she was cured. There is a world of difference between “increasing your chances of survival” and being cured. 

    Increasing my chances of survival = wearing a seatbelt. 
    Surviving = not driving my car off the cliff.

    What cures cancer is surgery and/or huge wodges of poisonous chemicals and/or radiation. 
    I wasn't talking about her.   Obviously she was a scam artist.
    I was responding to the post suggesting that diet / lifestyle have no impact on cancer.
    And, if you believe the ONLY treatment for cancer lies in the doctor's office, then you need to reread my post again.   And, if you still believe that only a doctor can impact cancer, then you owe it to yourself to do a little research into the matter.
    Nope, you need to reread my post, and stop stubstituting words to score a point. 

    Healthy eating and exercise will not cure cancer. Impact is not the same as cure. If you stop smoking then it will impact your lung cancer (possibly), but it won’t cure it, unless you can point to reliable evidence to prove otherwise. This ‘impact’ rubbish you’ve added in is irrelevant to the conversation because the woman claimed her cancer was cured, and Apple Australia should have asked a doctor to see if this was possible without medical treatment. 

    If she claimed that what she’d done had impacted her cancer then that would be different (though she should still have to prove it). 



  • Reply 13 of 13
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    oodlum said:
    "Wellness" tends to raise a pseudoscience red flag for me. This looks like Theranos-level bull. One review: "What made me return it is that I forgot it at home one day, on the charger. That day I got the most notifications. Calm streaks, busy streaks, whatever kinds of streaks I had a bunch! That's when I knew this is bogus". Plenty of positive reviews of course, but motivated reasoning tends to override critic thinking where "wellness" is concerned. 

    I'm still kind of disgusted with Apple for their role in actively promoting Belle Gibson's Whole pantry cancer cure fraud with zero due diligence. 


    .....

    You know what I suspect part of the problem is?

    A desire to believe that this is possible. Perhaps a desire to believe that the founder may have been right: that it is possible to treat yourself for cancer. 
    Actually, it is possible -- particularly for certain types of cancer.  
    Cancer, like infection, is continuously forming in your body but usually, the body identifies it, combats it and destroys it before it gets out of control.  But typically, we only call it "cancer" when a tumor grows large enough that medical science can identify it.  But that tumor typically has been growing for years and even decades before it grows large enough to be seen on a diagnostic test.

    While treating cancer with healthy eating, exercise and stress reduction has no guarantee of success in defeating a cancer that is raging out of control neither does medical treatment.

    The short answer:   They are both effective and, quite often, they both work better together.  But that also depends on the type of cancer.   For instance, lung cancer, colon cancer and breast & prostate cancers seem to be more closely linked to lifestyle factors than, say, brain, pancreatic or lymphomic cancers.

    Two rather simplistic examples:
    A person with lung cancer has a much better chance of survival if he stops smoking.
    Or, since the World Health Organization identified processed meats as a carcinogen, a person with colon cancer has a better chance of survival if he stops eating hot dogs, pepperoni and bacon.
    And, both have a better chance of never having contracted their cancers if they never indulged in either smoking or eating processed meats.
    The woman said she was cured. There is a world of difference between “increasing your chances of survival” and being cured. 

    Increasing my chances of survival = wearing a seatbelt. 
    Surviving = not driving my car off the cliff.

    What cures cancer is surgery and/or huge wodges of poisonous chemicals and/or radiation. 
    I wasn't talking about her.   Obviously she was a scam artist.
    I was responding to the post suggesting that diet / lifestyle have no impact on cancer.
    And, if you believe the ONLY treatment for cancer lies in the doctor's office, then you need to reread my post again.   And, if you still believe that only a doctor can impact cancer, then you owe it to yourself to do a little research into the matter.
    Nope, you need to reread my post, and stop stubstituting words to score a point. 

    Healthy eating and exercise will not cure cancer. Impact is not the same as cure. If you stop smoking then it will impact your lung cancer (possibly), but it won’t cure it, unless you can point to reliable evidence to prove otherwise. This ‘impact’ rubbish you’ve added in is irrelevant to the conversation because the woman claimed her cancer was cured, and Apple Australia should have asked a doctor to see if this was possible without medical treatment. 

    If she claimed that what she’d done had impacted her cancer then that would be different (though she should still have to prove it). 



    You need to reread MY post that contained the nuance and explanations that I'm not going to repeat.  But, I'm not sure that you want to -- since you seem obsessed with this woman who I have said I'm not talking about because I'm talking about cancer not scam artists.

    For your contention that only physicians can cure cancer:   If you want to put all your eggs in your physician's basket hoping he will cure your cancer while you continue the unhealthy lifestyle patterns that caused it, that is your choice.  But, more than likely, not even your physician would do that because he, being more familiar with the science, would know better.
Sign In or Register to comment.