bsimpsen

Twenty six years ago, I measured my infant son's pulse and and respiration rates using a 9V battery powered radar unit placed under his crib. The hardware in that radar cost about two dollars. It seems reasonable that improvements over time would allow a HomePod to detect the same things under less hospitable conditions. Sensing atrial fibrillation or obstructive apnea in sleeping people, without requiring them to wear a watch, would be a worthy goal.

digitol said:

Caution! Apple watch and it’s measurements/monitoring is often inaccurate. This should not substitute for a Doctor. In fact, it’s almost criminal how horrible these devices are. Many things to account for, that isn’t taken into consideration for health, which may hurt certain individuals with underlying health issues or other circumstances. Apple watch is more of a toy. 

By your logic, clinical measurements and monitoring are often inaccurate because they don't take into consideration what happens outside the clinical setting. This is actually often true, as demonstrated in this story. Do you consider clinical tools to be toys?

I'm retired from a long career designing diagnostic ECG equipment, including ambulatory (worn-at-home) monitors. The Apple Watch is certainly no toy. Both of my parents have had A-Fib for years, and my Apple Watch was able to detect it in both of them. I routinely throw PVCs and I've been able to capture them via the watch.

When it comes to understanding the value of various kinds of medical monitoring, there is real understanding and toy understanding.

buttesilver said:

This might explain why my TV 4K finally connects to my HomePod every time now.  It was driving me nuts before.
So, in that case, it's good!  Might be coincidence, but it never worked right before.

It's still not working for either of our AppleTV/HomePod setups. It's a complete mess. We have to re-link the TV and HomePods several times per evening. Simply switching out of one app and into another dumps or screws up the pairing.

swat671 said:

If Apple does this, I wonder if they'll license the x86 instruction set from Intel? That would make the most sense for at least the first few years until devs can update software. It will take YEARS for this to play out if they did. Of course, they could use a "Fat Binary" like they did during the PPC-x86 transition... That way, the app bundle will be able to support both platforms. My question would be about performance. No ARM chip will be able to outperform the Xenon chips in the Mac Pro and iMac Pro. What about those systems? Will developers have to keep using Fat Binaries forever because of that? There are just so many questions, that I don't know if it makes sense or not. 

I don't think there is any chance Intel will license the x86 instruction set to Apple. I also think it's premature to declare that no ARM chip will be able to outperform Xenon. By avoiding Intel's 40-60% margins, Apple can throw 1.6-2.5x the silicon at the problem and maintain the same selling price.

randominternetperson said:

I hope the research article pointed out that a drunk driver is drunk 100% of the time they are driving while a distracted driver has the option about when to be distracted.

Yet the drivers in the tests chose to be distracted during the test, thereby producing the stated results.

randominternetperson said:

There's a reason Apple doesn't market Apple Play to NASCAR and Formula 1 drivers.

Or course there is, but you haven't elucidated it.