Actually I think you're missing the bigger picture. When the iPod came out, digital media players were a small part of the overall portable music player market. When the iPhone came out, the smartphone was a small part of the overall cellular market. It's not so much how many people are clamoring for biometrics in an always wearable device now, it's how many folks will be clamoring for one once a great product is out in the market. Remember, that is a large part of "the Apple magic", to produce a product that you didn't know that you couldn't live without. Of course that's a lot of hyperbole, but I think you can see where this is headed.
That said, let's envision a scenario where the iWatch does indeed ship with all these cool biometric sensors and it becomes a major hit. I wonder what type of collateral effects such a contraption would have. Imagine if the above mentioned glucose measuring was present and reasonably accurate. Imagine setting alarms for when your glucose level increases by a certain percentage, so when you start chowing down on that Krispy Kreme, your alarm goes off. If having such a device can actually cause a reasonable number of people to start changing their habits, it could have a very interesting effect on many other markets completely unrelated to technology. This is just a thought experiment for now, but one that could possibly be intriguing.
Personally, I wear a watch, and am pretty old school about it (e.g. mechanical only). That said, I hope Apple does come out with an iWatch with lots of biometric goodness if for no other reason than to A) put all these rumors to bed and shut folks up about Apple being unable to "innovate" post SJ.
If your blood glucose level goes up while you're chowing down a donut, you ought to go see a doctor immediately because that is unheard of metabolism.
When Apple NEEDS all the real innovation in and around it's products it can muster, this stuff bring trickled and twiddled and tossed around in a lab salad bowl like un-breakable $10,000 BB's, is really enough to irritate many pragmatists to the point of bitch-slapping a developer or two just for the fun of it.
Thru some of this leisure reading we find that Apple has had a patent since 2010 that CAN use EKG signals as unique identifiers for people when they touch or pick up a device. WHY HASN'T this been commercialized yet ? A company in Canada has been waiting YEARS to use their similar technology for unlocks on IOS devices but Apple doesn't seem to have time to doing nothing bout it. Maybe it's be use Apple has owned the latent for FIVE YEARS AND HAS SAT ON IT ??? With unique security solutions being more precious than an undiscovered element, it would seem that Apple would give a least a single snort !!
Nope...too arrogant. No wonder Lots of folks really hate these Apple clowns. This us part of the reason...
If someone can develop an accurate, non intrusive way of continuously measure blood glucose levels they will indeed have hit the jackpot. Apple doesn't necessarily need to create such a device (sensor), but the iWatch needs to be the go-to display / recorder option.
I'm basically of the opposite opinion. The value of the band will stem from the sensor and the algorithms behind it. Sales of the hardware is where Apple will make its money. The display and data recording is the least valuable part of the value chain for Apple.
The band doesn't even need to have a display. It'll make a measurement, store the data, then when the user wants to see it, it'll transfer the raw data to a paired iOS device, and the iOS device reduce, interpret the data and display it to the user. Also store it longer term.
If it really can measure glucose noninvasively, jackpot. The millions of diabetics who have to poke themselves everyday will want it. Insurance companies will pay for it (test strips aren't exactly cheap). Just jackpot.
If it can measure glucose for real, then all the other measurements from a blood test are incremental improvements down the road. Spectroscopy, right? The trick is both in the sensor and the algorithms to extract weak signals from non invasive but really noisy measurements. That's the break through. Not the UI or data storage. Touch ID is kind of an early run for this type of thing.
The value is in the sensor and the processing software behind. There is a lot of blue sky for Apple to fly into if they can make accurate enough measurements: health, fitness, locks and keys, maybe even payments.
How could you possibly have understood those ... comments?
He’s saying that Apple is in the wrong for not utilizing the patent it has for an implementation of a security feature that takes advantage of the subtle difference in innate capacitance between different humans. Since touchscreen devices are already capacitive, it’s not a big stretch to see a future device with a capacitive screen that detects these differences and pulls up different information depending on who is using it without any need for traditional or other biometric security.
I don’t disagree with his point–that they should get that tech into a usable form and put it in a shipping product–but rather his position: that Apple is evil for sitting on the patent for so long. He’s just overzealous.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/162055/apples-iwatch-rumored-to-use-optoelectronics-to-monitor-heart-rate-blood-oxygen-levels#post_2472376" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>GQB</strong> <a href="/t/162055/apples-iwatch-rumored-to-use-optoelectronics-to-monitor-heart-rate-blood-oxygen-levels#post_2472376"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><p>True that the couch jockeys who inhabit tech forums probably don't get it, but the Boomer market for things that aid health monitoring is going to enormous.</p></div></div><p> </p>
heh - I know you're not referring to me - cuz I'm not a couch potato. Sure there are those who would want a health monitor, but are they a worldwide demographic, or just a minority US sport crew? If the iWatch is focused on health monitoring, I'll wager bragging rights that it will not be a big hit, and it will not be the next wave of gear.
No one will pay $650 for a phone. The iPad is simply a larger iPhone. The list goes on. Must you, too, assume and jump to conclusions of if something will be a success or failure?
A minority crew want to monitor their health on their watch. A minority crew wanted to have email access, social media access, and look at the Internet on a phone. Yet here we are.
The iWatch will reinvent wearable tech. I predicted it would use Corning's "Willow Glass". GT "Sapphire" looks to be used instead. But I've been thinking about the implications of this for a year. iWatch: Apple’s Biometric Masterpiece | techrament http://techrament.com/2013/08/21/iwatch-apples-biometric-masterpiece/
No one will pay $650 for a phone. The iPad is simply a larger iPhone. The list goes on. Must you, too, assume and jump to conclusions of if something will be a success or failure?
A minority crew want to monitor their health on their watch. A minority crew wanted to have email access, social media access, and look at the Internet on a phone. Yet here we are.
That isn't true. In any major city where you actually had a reasonable level of data coverage, blackberries were all over the place prior to the iphone. Email and internet on a phone was already a proven business model at that point.
That isn't true. In any major city where you actually had a reasonable level of data coverage, blackberries were all over the place prior to the iphone. Email and internet on a phone was already a proven business model at that point.
It is true. You think they were on Facebook? or checking out a blog on a webpage? Of course not. Email alone does not a smartphone make. And those that had Blackberries were still in the massive minority.
Comments
Actually I think you're missing the bigger picture. When the iPod came out, digital media players were a small part of the overall portable music player market. When the iPhone came out, the smartphone was a small part of the overall cellular market. It's not so much how many people are clamoring for biometrics in an always wearable device now, it's how many folks will be clamoring for one once a great product is out in the market. Remember, that is a large part of "the Apple magic", to produce a product that you didn't know that you couldn't live without. Of course that's a lot of hyperbole, but I think you can see where this is headed.
That said, let's envision a scenario where the iWatch does indeed ship with all these cool biometric sensors and it becomes a major hit. I wonder what type of collateral effects such a contraption would have. Imagine if the above mentioned glucose measuring was present and reasonably accurate. Imagine setting alarms for when your glucose level increases by a certain percentage, so when you start chowing down on that Krispy Kreme, your alarm goes off. If having such a device can actually cause a reasonable number of people to start changing their habits, it could have a very interesting effect on many other markets completely unrelated to technology. This is just a thought experiment for now, but one that could possibly be intriguing.
Personally, I wear a watch, and am pretty old school about it (e.g. mechanical only). That said, I hope Apple does come out with an iWatch with lots of biometric goodness if for no other reason than to A) put all these rumors to bed and
shut folks up about Apple being unable to "innovate" post SJ.
If your blood glucose level goes up while you're chowing down a donut, you ought to go see a doctor immediately because that is unheard of metabolism.
I really love where they are going with this.
You do? Without even knowing where they are going with it? Now that's ardour.
Really looking forward to any iWatch rumors that do not discuss fitness or health.
Thru some of this leisure reading we find that Apple has had a patent since 2010 that CAN use EKG signals as unique identifiers for people when they touch or pick up a device. WHY HASN'T this been commercialized yet ? A company in Canada has been waiting YEARS to use their similar technology for unlocks on IOS devices but Apple doesn't seem to have time to doing nothing bout it. Maybe it's be use Apple has owned the latent for FIVE YEARS AND HAS SAT ON IT ??? With unique security solutions being more precious than an undiscovered element, it would seem that Apple would give a least a single snort !!
Nope...too arrogant. No wonder Lots of folks really hate these Apple clowns. This us part of the reason...
I'm basically of the opposite opinion. The value of the band will stem from the sensor and the algorithms behind it. Sales of the hardware is where Apple will make its money. The display and data recording is the least valuable part of the value chain for Apple.
The band doesn't even need to have a display. It'll make a measurement, store the data, then when the user wants to see it, it'll transfer the raw data to a paired iOS device, and the iOS device reduce, interpret the data and display it to the user. Also store it longer term.
If it really can measure glucose noninvasively, jackpot. The millions of diabetics who have to poke themselves everyday will want it. Insurance companies will pay for it (test strips aren't exactly cheap). Just jackpot.
If it can measure glucose for real, then all the other measurements from a blood test are incremental improvements down the road. Spectroscopy, right? The trick is both in the sensor and the algorithms to extract weak signals from non invasive but really noisy measurements. That's the break through. Not the UI or data storage. Touch ID is kind of an early run for this type of thing.
The value is in the sensor and the processing software behind. There is a lot of blue sky for Apple to fly into if they can make accurate enough measurements: health, fitness, locks and keys, maybe even payments.
Proud citizen of the state of Delusion, are you?
How could you possibly have understood those ... comments?
He’s saying that Apple is in the wrong for not utilizing the patent it has for an implementation of a security feature that takes advantage of the subtle difference in innate capacitance between different humans. Since touchscreen devices are already capacitive, it’s not a big stretch to see a future device with a capacitive screen that detects these differences and pulls up different information depending on who is using it without any need for traditional or other biometric security.
I don’t disagree with his point–that they should get that tech into a usable form and put it in a shipping product–but rather his position: that Apple is evil for sitting on the patent for so long. He’s just overzealous.
No one will pay $650 for a phone. The iPad is simply a larger iPhone. The list goes on. Must you, too, assume and jump to conclusions of if something will be a success or failure?
A minority crew want to monitor their health on their watch. A minority crew wanted to have email access, social media access, and look at the Internet on a phone. Yet here we are.
http://techrament.com/2013/08/21/iwatch-apples-biometric-masterpiece/
No one will pay $650 for a phone. The iPad is simply a larger iPhone. The list goes on. Must you, too, assume and jump to conclusions of if something will be a success or failure?
A minority crew want to monitor their health on their watch. A minority crew wanted to have email access, social media access, and look at the Internet on a phone. Yet here we are.
That isn't true. In any major city where you actually had a reasonable level of data coverage, blackberries were all over the place prior to the iphone. Email and internet on a phone was already a proven business model at that point.
Buy it than!
That isn't true. In any major city where you actually had a reasonable level of data coverage, blackberries were all over the place prior to the iphone. Email and internet on a phone was already a proven business model at that point.
It is true. You think they were on Facebook? or checking out a blog on a webpage? Of course not. Email alone does not a smartphone make. And those that had Blackberries were still in the massive minority.