The catch, IMO, is that if an elderly person is using it, that they need to remember to charge it every day, for it to offer a chance to save a life. This the weak point that needs to be worked on.
Mind you, if there is no alternative then the charge limitation, is better than nothing.
Yes and no. Today, you manage without the watch as safe-guard. Once you start using it and more importantly, relying on it, then a forgotten charge leading to a depleted battery can lead to critical situations. Unless, the system clearly alerts the user of the need to recharge in time.
Right... And there is NO solution to that, just ARRRRRRRRR ..... Ahem.... (sic). There are many solutions possible in the near future, it's just the start of things.
This is what the watch was supposed to be, should be and will be. Today everyone outside of a hospital bed is unmonitored. Five years from now, I believe it will be considered unsafe/insane to be unmonitored. Everyone in the world who can afford it will be monitored. This is a multibillion-dollar, multibillion-user market that the Apple Watch was always meant to address. And now, hopefully, it will.
When this comes out, I will buy an Apple Watch, put it on and never take it off again.
that is hyperbole.
The largest portion of the population has absolutley no need to be monitored for health events. To even suggest that it will be "unsafe/insane to be unmonitored" is a ludicrous statement.
You should keep idiotic comments to yourself. For anyone with an elderly parent who cares about them (which may leave you out) a false alarm is better than no alarm if there is a problem
Yes and no. Today, you manage without the watch as safe-guard. Once you start using it and more importantly, relying on it, then a forgotten charge leading to a depleted battery can lead to critical situations. Unless, the system clearly alerts the user of the need to recharge in time.
Right... And there is NO solution to that, just ARRRRRRRRR ..... Ahem.... (sic). There are many solutions possible in the near future, it's just the start of things.
If our read my first post in this thread then you should know that I agree with this. And the start will always have some bumps to be ironed out. I'm just pointing out that there is a crucial difference between something that is a conodity and something you rely on.
Right... And there is NO solution to that, just ARRRRRRRRR ..... Ahem.... (sic). There are many solutions possible in the near future, it's just the start of things.
If our read my first post in this thread then you should know that I agree with this. And the start will always have some bumps to be ironed out. I'm just pointing out that there is a crucial difference between something that is a conodity and something you rely on.
I agree, but Apple is likely already working on this for several years considering who they hired and Jobs wanting to make the experience of diagnostic and health management less of a mess than it is now; likely because of his own experience with this in his last years. I think they know what those devices entail just as much as the companies currently doing them.
Engineering goals change, they increase redundancy and there, it's done; those devices usually also have fallback modes were if some more sophisticated function doesn't work, the core one does (those are the functions that need the most attention).
Lets face it, the current experience with medical device is horrible and a disjointed mess, having a big company like Apple involved could finally shake up the complacent medical device industry.
Some people think Apple is fleecing people, when in fact the substandard overpriced crap that's in that in this industry is where the real thief lie. The hearing aids industry alone are ripe for some swift ass kicking. Everyone I know who has one thinks they got robbed (that's 12 people, no positive opinion)! Considering the tech they got and "service" that supposedly come with those devices. they are right.
The interesting thing about the Watch's accuracy is that it doesn't need to be perfectly accurate. For example, in measuring your exercise levels, the Watch may not perfectly determine your heart rate compared to a professional arm cuff, but that's not the point entirely. Since its constantly measuring just YOU, it can provide a relative heart rate to determine when you are at rest versus when you are active.
I'm afraid this isn't true-not with the current state of the Apple Watch. While it can be very accurate, and usually is, it is currently VERY inconsistent. I exercise hard for an hour every day. At least five days out of seven I will be maybe 45 minutes into my workout and my watch will be reading, say, 145 bpm and then will suddenly show 74 bpm (which is what it seems to do when it gets confused). It will stay there for 1 to as many as 11 minutes and then suddenly jump back to 140 something. It also gets confused at the start of a workout showing 74 bpm or so for as long as 9 minutes before suddenly jumping to maybe 120. It does one or both of these things every workout, which usually screws up my calorie burn and my average heart rate, which I use to judge improvement. At least it doesn't think I've passed out and call an ambulance. To be considered a medical device the watch will have to be bulletproof, which it certainly is not at this time. I eagerly await the time when it is.
The largest portion of the population has absolutley no need to be monitored for health events. To even suggest that it will be "unsafe/insane to be unmonitored" is a ludicrous statement.
You should keep idiotic comments to yourself. For anyone with an elderly parent who cares about them (which may leave you out) a false alarm is better than no alarm if there is a problem
I am not saying an early warning system is a bad idea. or that monitoring at-risk people is wrong.
i was responding to a post that was hyperbole. --->
The false alarm rate will be high. And it turns out that heart rate is not the best early alert -- respiratory rate is more specific. The Watch doesn't measure that unless I'm missing something in this patent.
The algorithm required to reduce the false alarm rate without missing true events (if you miss those, what good is the app?) is challenging. Not to say Apple can't do it and get it into the Watch or Watch/iPhone combination, but it requires a lot of processing muscle.
Perhaps once the software is able to build an "activity profile" it would be able to determine if certain activity or inactivity would be unusual, and thus in need of attention.
Comments
There are many solutions possible in the near future, it's just the start of things.
Engineering goals change, they increase redundancy and there, it's done; those devices usually also have fallback modes were if some more sophisticated function doesn't work, the core one does (those are the functions that need the most attention).
Lets face it, the current experience with medical device is horrible and a disjointed mess, having a big company like Apple involved could finally shake up the complacent medical device industry.
Some people think Apple is fleecing people, when in fact the substandard overpriced crap that's in that in this industry is where the real thief lie. The hearing aids industry alone are ripe for some swift ass kicking. Everyone I know who has one thinks they got robbed (that's 12 people, no positive opinion)! Considering the tech they got and "service" that supposedly come with those devices. they are right.
No it isn't. It measures heart rate - that's it - and it doesn't do that with any great accuracy either.
Think of the class actions - our beloved relatives died because their Watches failed to issue alerts when they should have.
I am not saying an early warning system is a bad idea. or that monitoring at-risk people is wrong.
i was responding to a post that was hyperbole.
--->