4 ms·
Likely more expensive for two reasons: 1) Wii board is mass produced in greater volumes. 2) Selling any technology into medicine is a long slow costly process
by danw 17y ago
Likely more expensive for two reasons:
1) Wii board is mass produced in greater volumes.
2) Selling any technology into medicine is a long slow costly process involving multiple stages of approval and testing. Not so for a consumer game.
No 2 isn't going to change any time soon.
- bh23ha 17y agoAs someone has has in the past worked in biotechnology software and is currently working on biothech instrumentation software - you are EXACTLY correct. The problem with #2 is that we could get a lot of things cheaper and faster to market with only slightly more risk for the consumer. But the regulators have no incentive to take on that extra bit of risk. Sick people on the other hand...
- electromagnetic 17y agoI wonder if, for exercise equipment at least, it would be worth developing it as a video game 'peripheral' and avoid much of the regulators control. Imagine this: a row-machine that links into your Xbox/PS3/Wii and you can compete in tournaments in game and online, but have it completely usable without it being used as a gaming peripheral. It could be similarly attached to any 'sport' equipment. I wonder if this would be enough to evade regulator oversight or not.
- electromagnetic 17y agoIt's considerably cheaper to build your own gym equipment than ever buying it. I remember reading someones efforts to build a human hamster wheel, built from steel tubing which cost ~$300. I know I saw a wooden one built for ~$50 of lumber. IIRC the wooden saw took a mitre saw and a single wood chisel, so with tools included it likely cost less than $100. The wooden human hamster wheel looked considerably sturdier than most wooden furniture capable of holding several people. Exercise and 'medical' equipment go through rigorous testing, mostly to absolve the developer of liability.
- gphil 17y agoI agree with your assessment, but it kind of bothers me that it's the status quo that medical technology has such a high barrier to entry. IMO, it should be that if a doctor thinks that a tool is useful, then he should be able to use it. Just about any other professional would be granted this freedom. I think however that this becomes more understandable in terms of pharmaceuticals, where there is clearly an element of danger associated with a lack of testing.