- Last Active
So, to paraphrase: "I only gave a cursory look at this Matter thing, but do you really want BIG TECH DECIDING HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK????"
To which the answer is: well, yeah. They're big enough to properly resource the project, they can afford to pay more for the best people, and they're more likely to create a solid, reliable product. In the case of Apple, anyway.
Does this guy think standards are made up by a bunch of clever people who all sit down without egos, agendas, or different ways of looking at the world, and rationally debate the merits of various aspects of each proposal, ultimately adopting at least one idea or process from each submission so that nobody feels left out?
There are a number of different formats for data interchange in the health space. Apple has settled on one of the newer ones, FHIR, which is not (yet) as comprehensive as the older HL7 spec (although it depends which version of HL7 you're using). There's a HUGE number of systems exchanging data based on these older formats and it's an uphill battle to convince providers to convert unless they're using a system where multiple formats are supported and they only have to change a single setting.
In Australia there's a push to have all medical records stored centrally; naturally there has been significant pushback from the citizenry with concerns over privacy and security. But the government has a point: the industry has had thirty-plus years to come up with a standard method for storing and sharing health information, and it hasn't happened so government has stepped in.
From a personal point of view having everything on a device I own (with secured backups automatically pushed to a service like iCloud) would be great if my health providers could be granted selective access, but locking in to a single device/data provider is not a good idea for a large population. It may be that Apple's approach becomes a de facto standard that then gets enshrined by an industry standards consortium and other device/OS providers come on board, but there's a lot of detail to be worked out before that happens. It would not surprise me if it's twenty years before we reach some sort of stable ecosystem in this space. Some of the recalcitrance is understandable (money spent on systems is money not spent on treating patients, and we're talking about an industry where people dying is an everyday occurrence so stability and accuracy are paramount) but some of it is just butt-covering and politics.
It's good to see Apple's efforts here, but it's only early days.
Reminds me of an old joke: a man comes out of an airport with two large pieces of luggage, spots an old friend and enters into conversation. He shows off his new watch, which comes with a mind-boggling variety of features such as AM/FM radio, instantly displays the time in any city you care to mention, tracks the stock market, measures your heart rate, maintains your schedule, etc, etc. His friend is impressed and offers to buy it from him, they agree on a price and the man hands over his watch. But as his friend is about to walk away the man hands over his luggage and says "Don't forget the batteries!"
While typing out the above I was shocked to realise how many of the features now in the AppleWatch and/or iPhone were simply pipe dreams a few decades ago.
lmasanti said:quote: “allowing creators to sidestep Apple's 30% in-app purchase fee.”
Translated with George Orwell's 1984 ‘Newspeak/doublethink’ dictionary…
“We want to cash on your Apple's 30% payments…”