3 ms·
I think the technology would be better put to use on something other than the Apple Watch, unless an equivalent sensor minus Apple's other contributions also so
by ivanbakel 10y ago
I think the technology would be better put to use on something other than the Apple Watch, unless an equivalent sensor minus Apple's other contributions also somehow starts at $350. You're conflating the sensor with an overpriced and rather useless piece of technology, which I say as the owner of one. I'm in full support of a non-invasive sensor for diabetics, but if we manage to come up with one, I would be against giving it an Apple price tag.
- MBCook 10y agoApple could invent this an then license the sensor to other people. They gave away health kit. And they could choose not to license it to their competitors, only medical companies. But surely they'd put it on their own devices as well. Seems like a weird attitude though: If company X can afford to (possibly waste) billions of dollars to make a medical breakthrough in Y, I don't want them to because then they'd use it themselves and charge money.
- ivanbakel 10y agoWhere did I say that I don't want Apple to pursue this research? I just said that I don't want it to be solely available on Apple devices, and I certainly wouldn't support a company being congratulated for providing a medical service at an incredible cost.