I don't get all the noise today about google .... so what? They track anything and everything .... DEAD or Alive!!
Because this time they might actually be tracking something useful, like glucose levels.
I'm just curious how it would feel to wear this. I've been wearing soft contacts myself for over 20 years. Comfort will obviously be a big issue. Would be amazing if they manage to bring these to market, especially if they can communicate with a smartphone app.
I don't get all the noise today about google .... so what? They track anything and everything .... DEAD or Alive!!
Because this time they might actually be tracking something useful, like glucose levels.
I'm just curious how it would feel to wear this. I've been wearing soft contacts myself for over 20 years. Comfort will obviously be a big issue. Would be amazing if they manage to bring these to market, especially if they can communicate with a smartphone app.
Yes, I understand. I am sure this type of invention helps people more than their stupid dumb OK Glass crap ... but only IF they don't send an Ad to some poor patients .... Buy Viagra online .... it'll help leveling your glucose!
Not only thick, but just where are they going to hide the CR2032 battery? Or maybe it will have a little generator, powered by the eyelid winking.
From a more detailed article on another blog:
"powered remotely using a 5-millimeter-long antenna printed on the lens to receive gigahertz-range radio-frequency energy from a transmitter"
Shareholders don't have much say at Google. Google is pretty much immune to the Icahns and Einhorns that Apple is prone to run into should they try to step outside the box.
If you invest in Google it is pretty much solely for the hopes of a decent ROI- you do get a token vote because it is a requirement- but your vote actually amounts to little compared to the super-voting shares.
I'm pretty sure Larry and Sergei alone still control over 50% of the votes by themselves- so shareholders agreeing or disagreeing with them just doesn't matter as much as it does in companies where angry shareholders could actually vote in a new CEO.
Shareholders don't have much say at Google. Google is pretty much immune to the Icahns and Einhorns that Apple is prone to run into should they try to step outside the box.
If you invest in Google it is pretty much solely for the hopes of a decent ROI- you do get a token vote because it is a requirement- but your vote actually amounts to little compared to the super-voting shares.
I'm pretty sure Larry and Sergei alone still control over 50% of the votes by themselves- so shareholders agreeing or disagreeing with them just doesn't matter as much as it does in companies where angry shareholders could actually vote in a new CEO.
Google was up front with investors from the beginning: "As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to "make their quarter." In Warren Buffett's words, "We won't 'smooth' quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."
If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities. We will have the fortitude to do this. We would request that our shareholders take the long term view." http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html
As someone with a scientific background, I 100% disagree with this. R&D can benefit humanity without people making money off of it.
I did not say that it may not be beneficial, but too many company spend money on ideas which never see the light of day in any practical sense.
If you do not believe me, go to any number of government research lab websites which US tax payers have paid for and they have a long list of research idea that have put time and money into and they are advertising these ideas are open to anyone who wants to license them, and very few have takers why, the list is long but mostly because no one can figure out how to make money form the idea.
I am and engineer and with all my years in R&D and Product Develop one thing I know is all engineers and scientist thing all problem are interesting and need to be solved whether it make any financial sense. I am not aware of anyone willing to work for free or some other benefit, so the idea have to pay the bills and as said Google is appears to be going the Path of Xerox.
One last point, yeah you need R&D to see what ideas work and which one will be beneficial, at the end of day you have to productize the idea and make money form it. The best thing Google could do is spin these idea off into their own companies and let people run with them, but they have not done that yet.
Google was up front with investors from the beginning:
"As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to "make their quarter." In Warren Buffett's words, "We won't 'smooth' quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."
If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities. We will have the fortitude to do this. We would request that our shareholders take the long term view."
To you point, Google is still ridding high on high growth opportunities, They have not hit the Wall Street lumps in the road. When Wall Street turns on Google as we have seen them turn on Apple and other companies watch that they do, that statement will get toss in a second and they will be do exactly what Steve Jobs refuse to do but now Cook has to deal with, spending more time dealing with Wall Street than running the business at hand.
Steve never went to a customer to do a dog and pony show, Steve most likely would have had the CEO of China Mobile come to him at some product announcement. Cook is now pandering to Wall Street in hopes to help drive up the value of the stock to where most everyone believe it should be.
As someone with a scientific background, I 100% disagree with this. R&D can benefit humanity without people making money off of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
I did not say that it may not be beneficial, but too many company spend money on ideas which never see the light of day in any practical sense.
If you do not believe me, go to any number of government research lab websites which US tax payers have paid for and they have a long list of research idea that have put time and money into and they are advertising these ideas are open to anyone who wants to license them, and very few have takers why, the list is long but mostly because no one can figure out how to make money form the idea.
I am and engineer and with all my years in R&D and Product Develop one thing I know is all engineers and scientist thing all problem are interesting and need to be solved whether it make any financial sense. I am not aware of anyone willing to work for free or some other benefit, so the idea have to pay the bills and as said Google is appears to be going the Path of Xerox.
One last point, yeah you need R&D to see what ideas work and which one will be beneficial, at the end of day you have to productize the idea and make money form it. The best thing Google could do is spin these idea off into their own companies and let people run with them, but they have not done that yet.
As someone with a scientific, medical, and investment background, I agree with Maestro64. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to bring a significant medical product (a drug or device) to market without substantial investment. A public company such as Google will not invest the hundreds of millions of dollars to get such a device approved unless they hope to get a return on their investment for their shareholders. They may toy around with certain ideas to flex their muscles, get free publicity, and improve their image, but they have a history of revealing ideas at an early stage that are quietly abandoned later.
With respect to the actual device, I do not think a contact lens measuring tear glucose levels is the best way for noninvasive glucose monitoring. Chronic contact lens use has numerous issues and complications, and the FDA (and EMEA, following the FDA's lead) would want to be assured that there are no further complications in diabetics. If Google can get it to work, more power to them. Until then... we'll just wait and see.
As a side note, , to paraphrase RichL a bit, I do believe that Europe and the ROW and benefit 100% from the medical R&D done in the U.S. (public, private, corporate) without having to pay for it.
Just noticed an "exclusive story" at 9to5 about Apple also working on sensors and products for the medical field. Somewhat atypical really as it almost reads as coming from Apple sources, sorta "we're doing it too". Little doubt that Apple is in fact working in the same field and has been for awhile but perfect timing on previously unreported details and tech.
Just noticed an "exclusive story" at 9to5 about Apple also working on sensors and products for the medical field. Somewhat atypical really as it almost reads as coming from Apple sources, sorta "we're doing it too".
This idea seems to be kind of overkill. I really don't think that having a contact lens measure your glucose is something useful or something that someone might really want.
Unless someone with a condition like diabetes that also needs to wear glasses wanted that extra bonus from their contacts, I don't see how this could be useful.
To you point, Google is still ridding high on high growth opportunities, They have not hit the Wall Street lumps in the road. When Wall Street turns on Google as we have seen them turn on Apple and other companies watch that they do, that statement will get toss in a second and they will be do exactly what Steve Jobs refuse to do but now Cook has to deal with, spending more time dealing with Wall Street than running the business at hand.
Steve never went to a customer to do a dog and pony show, Steve most likely would have had the CEO of China Mobile come to him at some product announcement. Cook is now pandering to Wall Street in hopes to help drive up the value of the stock to where most everyone believe it should be.
Pure BS!
When Steve announced the iPhone, partners were with him for the announcement. Sure, the partners were here in the USA but the truth is Steve went to Verizon and AT&T and Corning to promote iPhone. Trying to hate in Tim Cook with falsehoods about Steve is simply idiotic.
There is no doubt Steve would have had his ass in China just like Tim did for this announcement. Apple needs China Mobile AND China much more than China Mobile and China needs Apple.
Doubt what I write? Just let some politician in China decide to hate on Apple to see how quickly Apple sales get blocked and Apple's stock drops.
So please let the Steve historical rewrites go because Steve is dead and is not coming back. He is missed and will be remembered. But remember him with all his faults and strengths honestly. That will show respect to his memory.
Comments
I don't get all the noise today about google .... so what? They track anything and everything .... DEAD or Alive!!
Because this time they might actually be tracking something useful, like glucose levels.I'm just curious how it would feel to wear this. I've been wearing soft contacts myself for over 20 years. Comfort will obviously be a big issue. Would be amazing if they manage to bring these to market, especially if they can communicate with a smartphone app.
Too bad, mighty Google did not make an early detector for cancer...
Then this would not have happened:
LOL, Jobs dying words were "it's complicated"... who knew?
I don't get all the noise today about google .... so what? They track anything and everything .... DEAD or Alive!!
Because this time they might actually be tracking something useful, like glucose levels.
I'm just curious how it would feel to wear this. I've been wearing soft contacts myself for over 20 years. Comfort will obviously be a big issue. Would be amazing if they manage to bring these to market, especially if they can communicate with a smartphone app.
Yes, I understand. I am sure this type of invention helps people more than their stupid dumb OK Glass crap ... but only IF they don't send an Ad to some poor patients .... Buy Viagra online .... it'll help leveling your glucose!
Your username made me laugh. Your post not so much.
What you see as "stupid" others may see as valuable.
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Doctors-see-Google-Glass-as-useful-diagnostic-tool-4958193.php
[VIDEO]
What you see as "stupid" others may see as valuable.
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Doctors-see-Google-Glass-as-useful-diagnostic-tool-4958193.php
http://www.healthcare.philips.com/main/about/future-of-healthcare/
No doubt. No doubt, my friend.
Personally, I would fire my doctor and hire one who looks at me straight in my eyes and pay attention to me and me ONLY!
Ouch, that contact lens looks thick.
Not only thick, but just where are they going to hide the CR2032 battery? Or maybe it will have a little generator, powered by the eyelid winking.
From a more detailed article on another blog:
"powered remotely using a 5-millimeter-long antenna printed on the lens to receive gigahertz-range radio-frequency energy from a transmitter"
Shareholders don't disagree....
Shareholders don't have much say at Google. Google is pretty much immune to the Icahns and Einhorns that Apple is prone to run into should they try to step outside the box.
If you invest in Google it is pretty much solely for the hopes of a decent ROI- you do get a token vote because it is a requirement- but your vote actually amounts to little compared to the super-voting shares.
I'm pretty sure Larry and Sergei alone still control over 50% of the votes by themselves- so shareholders agreeing or disagreeing with them just doesn't matter as much as it does in companies where angry shareholders could actually vote in a new CEO.
Google was up front with investors from the beginning:
"As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to "make their quarter." In Warren Buffett's words, "We won't 'smooth' quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."
If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities. We will have the fortitude to do this. We would request that our shareholders take the long term view."
http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html
Who the heck would be crazy enough to stick this thing in their eyes?
The liabilities for someone losing their eyes are tremendous.
Not to mention that Google devices are usually extra buggy.
Hell no. I would not use this on my eyes.
NEXT.
LOL
As someone with a scientific background, I 100% disagree with this. R&D can benefit humanity without people making money off of it.
I did not say that it may not be beneficial, but too many company spend money on ideas which never see the light of day in any practical sense.
If you do not believe me, go to any number of government research lab websites which US tax payers have paid for and they have a long list of research idea that have put time and money into and they are advertising these ideas are open to anyone who wants to license them, and very few have takers why, the list is long but mostly because no one can figure out how to make money form the idea.
I am and engineer and with all my years in R&D and Product Develop one thing I know is all engineers and scientist thing all problem are interesting and need to be solved whether it make any financial sense. I am not aware of anyone willing to work for free or some other benefit, so the idea have to pay the bills and as said Google is appears to be going the Path of Xerox.
One last point, yeah you need R&D to see what ideas work and which one will be beneficial, at the end of day you have to productize the idea and make money form it. The best thing Google could do is spin these idea off into their own companies and let people run with them, but they have not done that yet.
Google was up front with investors from the beginning:
"As a private company, we have concentrated on the long term, and this has served us well. As a public company, we will do the same. In our opinion, outside pressures too often tempt companies to sacrifice long term opportunities to meet quarterly market expectations. Sometimes this pressure has caused companies to manipulate financial results in order to "make their quarter." In Warren Buffett's words, "We won't 'smooth' quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."
If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities. We will have the fortitude to do this. We would request that our shareholders take the long term view."
http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html
To you point, Google is still ridding high on high growth opportunities, They have not hit the Wall Street lumps in the road. When Wall Street turns on Google as we have seen them turn on Apple and other companies watch that they do, that statement will get toss in a second and they will be do exactly what Steve Jobs refuse to do but now Cook has to deal with, spending more time dealing with Wall Street than running the business at hand.
Steve never went to a customer to do a dog and pony show, Steve most likely would have had the CEO of China Mobile come to him at some product announcement. Cook is now pandering to Wall Street in hopes to help drive up the value of the stock to where most everyone believe it should be.
As someone with a scientific background, I 100% disagree with this. R&D can benefit humanity without people making money off of it.
Quote:
I did not say that it may not be beneficial, but too many company spend money on ideas which never see the light of day in any practical sense.
If you do not believe me, go to any number of government research lab websites which US tax payers have paid for and they have a long list of research idea that have put time and money into and they are advertising these ideas are open to anyone who wants to license them, and very few have takers why, the list is long but mostly because no one can figure out how to make money form the idea.
I am and engineer and with all my years in R&D and Product Develop one thing I know is all engineers and scientist thing all problem are interesting and need to be solved whether it make any financial sense. I am not aware of anyone willing to work for free or some other benefit, so the idea have to pay the bills and as said Google is appears to be going the Path of Xerox.
One last point, yeah you need R&D to see what ideas work and which one will be beneficial, at the end of day you have to productize the idea and make money form it. The best thing Google could do is spin these idea off into their own companies and let people run with them, but they have not done that yet.
As someone with a scientific, medical, and investment background, I agree with Maestro64. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to bring a significant medical product (a drug or device) to market without substantial investment. A public company such as Google will not invest the hundreds of millions of dollars to get such a device approved unless they hope to get a return on their investment for their shareholders. They may toy around with certain ideas to flex their muscles, get free publicity, and improve their image, but they have a history of revealing ideas at an early stage that are quietly abandoned later.
With respect to the actual device, I do not think a contact lens measuring tear glucose levels is the best way for noninvasive glucose monitoring. Chronic contact lens use has numerous issues and complications, and the FDA (and EMEA, following the FDA's lead) would want to be assured that there are no further complications in diabetics. If Google can get it to work, more power to them. Until then... we'll just wait and see.
As a side note, , to paraphrase RichL a bit, I do believe that Europe and the ROW and benefit 100% from the medical R&D done in the U.S. (public, private, corporate) without having to pay for it.
Boy, you are just the FUDmaster, aren’t you.
Unless someone with a condition like diabetes that also needs to wear glasses wanted that extra bonus from their contacts, I don't see how this could be useful.
Pure BS!
When Steve announced the iPhone, partners were with him for the announcement. Sure, the partners were here in the USA but the truth is Steve went to Verizon and AT&T and Corning to promote iPhone. Trying to hate in Tim Cook with falsehoods about Steve is simply idiotic.
There is no doubt Steve would have had his ass in China just like Tim did for this announcement. Apple needs China Mobile AND China much more than China Mobile and China needs Apple.
Doubt what I write? Just let some politician in China decide to hate on Apple to see how quickly Apple sales get blocked and Apple's stock drops.
So please let the Steve historical rewrites go because Steve is dead and is not coming back. He is missed and will be remembered. But remember him with all his faults and strengths honestly. That will show respect to his memory.