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.
If it was someone else stating this I would have been surprised. But it is you speaking out of your ass again. Thankfully there are people here who do not hesitate to correct your lies.
If it was someone else stating this I would have been surprised. But it is you speaking out of your ass again. Thankfully there are people here who do not hesitate to correct your lies.
Have at it then. State the lie and correct it. Oh, wait. . . :rolleyes:
Older people with diabetes often have vision issues and contact lenses are not usually recommended as they can cause infections, corneal ulcers and other problems which can be slow to heal due to the disease. Patients with diabetes also experience eye dryness more often and more severely than non-diabetic patients. So this invention appears to be nothing more than a proof of concept that glucose levels can be detected in tears using a modified contact lens, but does not look to be very promising or practical in real world situations.
If a diabetic alert dog can easily detect changes in blood sugar with only their sense of smell, you would think that scientists working in this area might try to devise a similar detection method rather than some invasive device like wifi enabled contact lenses that diabetes patients probably don't want to wear.
If it was someone else stating this I would have been surprised. But it is you speaking out of your ass again. Thankfully there are people here who do not hesitate to correct your lies.
Would you mind pointing to the part where GG lied?
Oh, so you know all about it then? Is Microsoft still involved?
I see no mention of Microsoft. What's the first paragraph of this article say?
"Google this week announced it has been working on a wearable device of a different kind than usual --?a smart contact lens that could measure glucose levels from the moisture on a user's eyeball. The search giant revealed the previously unknown project in a post to its official blog, which has been under development at the skunkworks-like "Google X" lab for experimental projects."
Have at it then. State the lie and correct it. Oh, wait. . . :rolleyes:
Let's start with the story itself...
The first image shown is of a skin tattoo. This is Motorola technology that has been written about for nearly a year. If I recall correctly the DARPA person now at Google presented the skin tattoo at All Things D last year.
I do not recall anything written about Apple and skin tattoos.
Apple hirings... The author grabbed info written about last year.
Smart ending iWatch... An unannounced product the author is guessing new hires are going to Apple to work on.
Other biometric technologies... Touch ID is real. The 600+ pages patent filed in Europe discussing future multi-touch fingerprint scanning capabilities was referenced here.
Big plans... More guesses.
So 9 TO 5 MAC digs into its treasure trove of articles from 2013 to write a new article about possible Apple sensor developments becomes "we're doing it too".
I can do the same thing using the links below just as Mark Gurman did.
yada, yada, ... This is why I responded to you with such negativity.
AFAIK no previous mention of Dougherty now working with Apple. No previous mention of her work at Sano Intelligence. No previous mention of her importance to Apple medical device research. No previous mention of the extensive patent work.
AFAIK no previous mention of Ravi Narasimhan signing on with Apple. No previous mention of his patents and their potential importance to Apple. No previous mention of how his expertise in blood monitoring fits with an iWatch.
AFAIK no previous mention of sources confirming Apple and iris scanning development work.
.
Negativity is fine. I'm not hurt when people don't like something I post. Calling it a lie is a bit extreme, and apparently not true (what would that be called?) since you've offered no example of one.
I see no mention of Microsoft. What's the first paragraph of this article say?
"Google this week announced it has been working on a wearable device of a different kind than usual --?a smart contact lens that could measure glucose levels from the moisture on a user's eyeball. The search giant revealed the previously unknown project in a post to its official blog, which has been under development at the skunkworks-like "Google X" lab for experimental projects."
Ok so you don't know all about it. My mistake.
Anyone else know if Microsoft is still involved with these researchers... And, again, what is Google's contribution?
Negativity is fine. I'm not hurt when people don't like something I post. Calling it a lie is a bit extreme, and apparently not true (what would that be called?) since you've offered no example of one.
Actually I did. Your "me too" comment distorted the truth about the sound of the article. I corrected your distortion.
Being how you are, you will continue to protect your distortion. I rest my responses on this matter.
Anyone else know if Microsoft is still involved with these researchers... And, again, what is Google's contribution?
Thanks for at least implying there was more to the story so I should go looking. I'll fill in what I found.
What is Microsoft's contribution to Google's project? A couple of University of Washington researchers who never worked for Microsoft but instead hoped Microsoft could help with their project. Tho they made headway Microsoft was ultimately unsuccessful with the researchers idea. Google picked up the slack, brought the two to the xLabs, Otis is on leave to Google from the University of Washington while Parvis is now a Google engineer, and have had better success. They've fine-tuned and created the tech needed for an actual product. Microsoft on the other hand couldn't completely figure it out as it's a dead project for them. Kudos to MS for trying tho. Certainly commendable.
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.
Aren't you something. Why would an exec at a Chinese company come to the US to announce/sell the iPhone? Please use your brain. China is a very important market. In 5 years or less it'll be the most important market. China Mobile is the largest carrier in the world. This ain't cricket or US Cellular.
Exactly. Sometimes, people just need to step down off the Google hatebox and applaud their truly GOOD efforts. As a person with a number of family members with diabetes, this is very interesting and promising to me.
Yes, some things need to be beyond company profits and instead be for the common good. There is a lot of societal value in 'common good'. If a profit making company develops an idea that they think fits that category and fort ahead 'because it is awesome', all power to them. This idea is absolutely potentially awesome. Whether Google has an ulterior motive or not, who knows, but I suspect this kind of effort, if developed entirely for the common good and without an eye on profit will serve Google well financially down the road in terms of monetization of auxiliary related products and services. Add to that the positive PR, keeping great employs happy and I'd think its a win win. Imagine if Apple produced something like this and how it would feed into the iWatch idea (I am sure the iWatch stands for iWatch over myself rather than iKnow what time it is).
This isn't about hating Google. It's the fact that many pro-Google people make it sound like Google doesn't care about making money and is doing these things out of the goodness of their hearts. That irks me because it is an utterly asinine notion. Google is as interested in earning a profit as the next company. It's just that Google doesn't care about the money it could make off of us consumers. They make far more money through advertising. That's why Google gives away things like Gmail and Maps for free. That's why they can eat losses that Motorola is going to post. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts. It's the fact that the money they make from advertisers is far more than what they lose by giving stuff away.
Echo Therapeutics has a much more practical glucose monitor. It is a transdermal sensor that just attaches to your skin and doesn't use a needle like the current Dexcom or Medtronic sensors. You don't have to put anything in your eye either. Echo is getting their sensor approved in Europe in April, and in the U.S. later this year.%uFEFF
Let me put that in perspective: John Scully introduced the "Knowledge Navigator" video in 1987. This is Google's Knowledge Navigator moment: A cool idea, but the product may never come.
So whatever happend to Google's self-driving car?
If Apple announced the iPhone not in 2007 as a complete product, but in 2005 as a concept in R&D, would you still consider it vaporware? Google's just using a different business model.
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.
Actually, Google already hit their "Wall Street lumps." A few years ago, Google's stock was in the dumps and Apple was riding high. Google's stock had fallen from an all-time high of around $700 per share around 2007 to around $500 per share in 2008. It fell even more during the bear market but recovered to around $500. It stayed range-bound for a while. During that time, questions emerged about Google's ability to generate growth outside of ad revenue. That's when Google's investments into self-driving cars and wind energy were revealed. It was under his stewardship that Google whiffed on social networking.
Now Google didn't really pander to Wall Street the way Apple is, but that's mainly because they didn't have a $100 billion cash hoard like Apple does. They threw Wall Street a bone by getting ad revenues back to growth. At least that's what I can see, because there is still no other growth engine outside of ad revenue. For all the articles we hear about how Android is stomping on iOS, Google doesn't have much to show for it.
But it's only a matter of time. If growth in advertising shows signs of slowing down, Wall Street will come for Google. Google has the luxury of trumpeting these pie-in-the-sky projects only because their ad business is showing excellent growth.
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 paxman
Yes, some things need to be beyond company profits and instead be for the common good. There is a lot of societal value in 'common good'. If a profit making company develops an idea that they think fits that category and fort ahead 'because it is awesome', all power to them. This idea is absolutely potentially awesome. Whether Google has an ulterior motive or not, who knows, but I suspect this kind of effort, if developed entirely for the common good and without an eye on profit will serve Google well financially down the road in terms of monetization of auxiliary related products and services.
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.
Your post reads like a desperate attempt to prove that Apple is collusion with 9to5Mac. I imagine you were hoping to plant your theory in order to somehow taint the view that folk have on Apple's involvement.
So let's try this for an unproven theory:
This line of Google research is a bizarre idea for the reason that mstone highlighted: diabetics are advised not to wear contact lenses. So why is Google doing it? Because they've learned that the trick to getting people to accept something unpalatable is by dressing it in something a little less unsavoury.
People, in general, don't like Google Glass. They think the whole idea is creepy and the folk who wear them are creepier still. That is the perception. So how do you get around this perception? If you're Google then you do it sneakily.
You carry on improving the tech, but you disguise it as medical research : "Leave us alone goddammit! We're trying to help people here!"
And in five years time, the "I think that weirdo wearing the Google Glass is filming me!" perception will disappear because the weirdo is filming you through a contact lense that is transmitting the feed to the phone in his pocket. You won't even know you're being filmed.
Comments
If it was someone else stating this I would have been surprised. But it is you speaking out of your ass again. Thankfully there are people here who do not hesitate to correct your lies.
Have at it then. State the lie and correct it. Oh, wait. . . :rolleyes:
Older people with diabetes often have vision issues and contact lenses are not usually recommended as they can cause infections, corneal ulcers and other problems which can be slow to heal due to the disease. Patients with diabetes also experience eye dryness more often and more severely than non-diabetic patients. So this invention appears to be nothing more than a proof of concept that glucose levels can be detected in tears using a modified contact lens, but does not look to be very promising or practical in real world situations.
If a diabetic alert dog can easily detect changes in blood sugar with only their sense of smell, you would think that scientists working in this area might try to devise a similar detection method rather than some invasive device like wifi enabled contact lenses that diabetes patients probably don't want to wear.
If it was someone else stating this I would have been surprised. But it is you speaking out of your ass again. Thankfully there are people here who do not hesitate to correct your lies.
Would you mind pointing to the part where GG lied?
Not sure what you're asking. It's a Google project being developed in their xLabs.
I see no mention of Microsoft. What's the first paragraph of this article say?
"Google this week announced it has been working on a wearable device of a different kind than usual --?a smart contact lens that could measure glucose levels from the moisture on a user's eyeball. The search giant revealed the previously unknown project in a post to its official blog, which has been under development at the skunkworks-like "Google X" lab for experimental projects."
Let's start with the story itself...
The first image shown is of a skin tattoo. This is Motorola technology that has been written about for nearly a year. If I recall correctly the DARPA person now at Google presented the skin tattoo at All Things D last year.
I do not recall anything written about Apple and skin tattoos.
Apple hirings... The author grabbed info written about last year.
Smart ending iWatch... An unannounced product the author is guessing new hires are going to Apple to work on.
Other biometric technologies... Touch ID is real. The 600+ pages patent filed in Europe discussing future multi-touch fingerprint scanning capabilities was referenced here.
Big plans... More guesses.
So 9 TO 5 MAC digs into its treasure trove of articles from 2013 to write a new article about possible Apple sensor developments becomes "we're doing it too".
I can do the same thing using the links below just as Mark Gurman did.
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/18/rumored_apple_hires_from_medical_sensor_field_could_hint_at_iwatch_capabilities
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/28/tim_cook_mum_on_iwatch_but_praises_nike_fuelband_pans_google_glass
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2010/05/apple-takes-a-giant-leap-in-biometrics-with-heart-sensors.html
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2009/04/apple-reveals-advanced-sports-monitoring-and-head-gesturing-systems.html
The article's made me think Samsung not Apple.. Strike One.
As soon as I saw the skin tattoo I thought... Strike Two.
IWatch team... Strike Three.
This was not "previously unreported details and tech"", all of it was previously reported as the author repeatedly wrote in the article.
This is why I responded to you with such negativity.
AFAIK no previous mention of Dougherty now working with Apple. No previous mention of her work at Sano Intelligence. No previous mention of her importance to Apple medical device research. No previous mention of the extensive patent work.
AFAIK no previous mention of Ravi Narasimhan signing on with Apple. No previous mention of his patents and their potential importance to Apple. No previous mention of how his expertise in blood monitoring fits with an iWatch.
AFAIK no previous mention of sources confirming Apple and iris scanning development work.
.
Negativity is fine. I'm not hurt when people don't like something I post. Calling it a lie is a bit extreme, and apparently not true (what would that be called?) since you've offered no example of one.
Ok so you don't know all about it. My mistake.
Anyone else know if Microsoft is still involved with these researchers... And, again, what is Google's contribution?
Actually I did. Your "me too" comment distorted the truth about the sound of the article. I corrected your distortion.
Being how you are, you will continue to protect your distortion. I rest my responses on this matter.
Night night. ????
Thanks for at least implying there was more to the story so I should go looking. I'll fill in what I found.
What is Microsoft's contribution to Google's project? A couple of University of Washington researchers who never worked for Microsoft but instead hoped Microsoft could help with their project. Tho they made headway Microsoft was ultimately unsuccessful with the researchers idea. Google picked up the slack, brought the two to the xLabs, Otis is on leave to Google from the University of Washington while Parvis is now a Google engineer, and have had better success. They've fine-tuned and created the tech needed for an actual product. Microsoft on the other hand couldn't completely figure it out as it's a dead project for them. Kudos to MS for trying tho. Certainly commendable.
Better?
Aren't you something. Why would an exec at a Chinese company come to the US to announce/sell the iPhone? Please use your brain. China is a very important market. In 5 years or less it'll be the most important market. China Mobile is the largest carrier in the world. This ain't cricket or US Cellular.
This isn't about hating Google. It's the fact that many pro-Google people make it sound like Google doesn't care about making money and is doing these things out of the goodness of their hearts. That irks me because it is an utterly asinine notion. Google is as interested in earning a profit as the next company. It's just that Google doesn't care about the money it could make off of us consumers. They make far more money through advertising. That's why Google gives away things like Gmail and Maps for free. That's why they can eat losses that Motorola is going to post. It's not out of the goodness of their hearts. It's the fact that the money they make from advertisers is far more than what they lose by giving stuff away.
Distractions.
Let me put that in perspective: John Scully introduced the "Knowledge Navigator" video in 1987. This is Google's Knowledge Navigator moment: A cool idea, but the product may never come.
So whatever happend to Google's self-driving car?
If Apple announced the iPhone not in 2007 as a complete product, but in 2005 as a concept in R&D, would you still consider it vaporware? Google's just using a different business model.
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.
Actually, Google already hit their "Wall Street lumps." A few years ago, Google's stock was in the dumps and Apple was riding high. Google's stock had fallen from an all-time high of around $700 per share around 2007 to around $500 per share in 2008. It fell even more during the bear market but recovered to around $500. It stayed range-bound for a while. During that time, questions emerged about Google's ability to generate growth outside of ad revenue. That's when Google's investments into self-driving cars and wind energy were revealed. It was under his stewardship that Google whiffed on social networking.
Now Google didn't really pander to Wall Street the way Apple is, but that's mainly because they didn't have a $100 billion cash hoard like Apple does. They threw Wall Street a bone by getting ad revenues back to growth. At least that's what I can see, because there is still no other growth engine outside of ad revenue. For all the articles we hear about how Android is stomping on iOS, Google doesn't have much to show for it.
But it's only a matter of time. If growth in advertising shows signs of slowing down, Wall Street will come for Google. Google has the luxury of trumpeting these pie-in-the-sky projects only because their ad business is showing excellent growth.
As someone with a scientific background, I 100% disagree with this. R&D can benefit humanity without people making money off of it.
Quote:Yes, some things need to be beyond company profits and instead be for the common good. There is a lot of societal value in 'common good'. If a profit making company develops an idea that they think fits that category and fort ahead 'because it is awesome', all power to them. This idea is absolutely potentially awesome. Whether Google has an ulterior motive or not, who knows, but I suspect this kind of effort, if developed entirely for the common good and without an eye on profit will serve Google well financially down the road in terms of monetization of auxiliary related products and services.
Tang.
Your post reads like a desperate attempt to prove that Apple is collusion with 9to5Mac. I imagine you were hoping to plant your theory in order to somehow taint the view that folk have on Apple's involvement.
So let's try this for an unproven theory:
This line of Google research is a bizarre idea for the reason that mstone highlighted: diabetics are advised not to wear contact lenses. So why is Google doing it? Because they've learned that the trick to getting people to accept something unpalatable is by dressing it in something a little less unsavoury.
People, in general, don't like Google Glass. They think the whole idea is creepy and the folk who wear them are creepier still. That is the perception. So how do you get around this perception? If you're Google then you do it sneakily.
You carry on improving the tech, but you disguise it as medical research : "Leave us alone goddammit! We're trying to help people here!"
And in five years time, the "I think that weirdo wearing the Google Glass is filming me!" perception will disappear because the weirdo is filming you through a contact lense that is transmitting the feed to the phone in his pocket. You won't even know you're being filmed.