8 ms·

The reason it needs to be a watch (I have also done several years of research in this field, by the way) is that devices only provide a benefit if you use them.

The reason it needs to be a watch (I have also done several years of research in this field, by the way) is that devices only provide a benefit if you use them. There are decades of research with all kinds of wild wearable devices in all kinds of form factors that can do amazing things. They have gone over like a lead balloon with the consumer. Socially, it is acceptable to wear exactly one piece of technology on one wrist. People with very dangerous medical conditions might be convinced to wear a well hidden device under their clothes but it's a big ask and compliance won't be as high as you'd expect. That's just how people are, so as engineers we have to make products to fit that.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
A significant percentage of the population wear bangles, large necklaces, hats, etc., for most of their day. It just can't look too unusual.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  That's the thing, people will wear an accessory, but different people will wear different accessories and will absolutely refuse to wear others. It makes it very hard for a business when, for instance, very few men are willing to wear your bangle or people can't wear your glucose monitoring hat inside nice restaurants. It's likely that different wearable forms will become more common and accepted, but that is one of those predictions you hear every year for the last thirty years and it's true to an extent but also there is a long way to go.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Doesn't seem like a big problem since enthusiasts and early adopters are precisely the type of folks who would most likely break established norms in using the product. Maybe one day it will be common for men to wear bangles on each arm, or for hat wearing to be common indoors via their actions. For example, no one carried around headphones out-and-about before the Walkman.
DoctorOetker 4y ago
Imagine selecting diabetes patients at random, and asking them one by one: "You are currently already by necessity accepting the monitoring of blood glucose invasively with device X, here is a less invasive device Y that sits under your lip, or perhaps has a fiberoptic cable running up to your lip. Would you switch to this lip-oriented device today? Or would you rather profusely refuse to use this device Y until some more distant unspecified future date where the technology Z finally robustly works through thicker layers of skin while continuing to use the more invasive device X?" I don't claim but tend to believe they would take improvement Y over X while waiting for Z. You actually claim they wouldn't. I say let the patients speak for themselves. Perhaps your claim is correct and no suitably large niche of patients would switch to the lip-oriented device. Perhaps you are wrong and you have confirmed my suspicion of the miscommunication between patients and engineers. Your rebuttal does not prove compliance of a less invasive lip oriented device would be lower than current invasive devices.
- dahdum 4y ago
  > prove compliance of a less invasive lip oriented device would be lower than current invasive devices I can't prove it, but I think it actually makes a lot of sense. The interstitial CGMs like Libre/Dexcom are invasive (brief pinch on application) but they last up to 2 weeks and you can set and forget. I'd think any other non-invasive device that requires carrying it around, running wires, and being even a little pro-active would lose on convenience alone. You could get some traction I'm sure, but the majority of people are going to gravitate towards the easiest solution, and applying a patch once every 10-14 days is pretty darn easy. Even if Apple could check glucose I'd still prefer a CGM patch so I don't have worry about always wearing the watch.
  - jawngee 4y ago
    Yet the majority of diabetics wear insulin pumps with tubing when non-tubing options exist.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  Diabetes falls under dangerous medical conditions, and they have a variety of wearable devices now for continuous glucose monitoring that are popular. They're invasive though, can allow other people to learn about your medical history just by looking at you (depending on what you're wearing/which device you have), can complicate intimacy and contact sports, and in general the patients would be much happier if a smart watch could do it without specialized hardware. There is a lot (a lot) of history here that I think would help you test your assumptions on this.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

A significant percentage of the population wear bangles, large necklaces, hats, etc., for most of their day. It just can't look too unusual.

jrumbut 4y ago
That's the thing, people will wear an accessory, but different people will wear different accessories and will absolutely refuse to wear others. It makes it very hard for a business when, for instance, very few men are willing to wear your bangle or people can't wear your glucose monitoring hat inside nice restaurants. It's likely that different wearable forms will become more common and accepted, but that is one of those predictions you hear every year for the last thirty years and it's true to an extent but also there is a long way to go.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  Doesn't seem like a big problem since enthusiasts and early adopters are precisely the type of folks who would most likely break established norms in using the product. Maybe one day it will be common for men to wear bangles on each arm, or for hat wearing to be common indoors via their actions. For example, no one carried around headphones out-and-about before the Walkman.

DoctorOetker 4y ago

Imagine selecting diabetes patients at random, and asking them one by one: "You are currently already by necessity accepting the monitoring of blood glucose invasively with device X, here is a less invasive device Y that sits under your lip, or perhaps has a fiberoptic cable running up to your lip. Would you switch to this lip-oriented device today? Or would you rather profusely refuse to use this device Y until some more distant unspecified future date where the technology Z finally robustly works through thicker layers of skin while continuing to use the more invasive device X?" I don't claim but tend to believe they would take improvement Y over X while waiting for Z. You actually claim they wouldn't. I say let the patients speak for themselves. Perhaps your claim is correct and no suitably large niche of patients would switch to the lip-oriented device. Perhaps you are wrong and you have confirmed my suspicion of the miscommunication between patients and engineers. Your rebuttal does not prove compliance of a less invasive lip oriented device would be lower than current invasive devices.

dahdum 4y ago
> prove compliance of a less invasive lip oriented device would be lower than current invasive devices I can't prove it, but I think it actually makes a lot of sense. The interstitial CGMs like Libre/Dexcom are invasive (brief pinch on application) but they last up to 2 weeks and you can set and forget. I'd think any other non-invasive device that requires carrying it around, running wires, and being even a little pro-active would lose on convenience alone. You could get some traction I'm sure, but the majority of people are going to gravitate towards the easiest solution, and applying a patch once every 10-14 days is pretty darn easy. Even if Apple could check glucose I'd still prefer a CGM patch so I don't have worry about always wearing the watch.
- jawngee 4y ago
  Yet the majority of diabetics wear insulin pumps with tubing when non-tubing options exist.
jrumbut 4y ago
Diabetes falls under dangerous medical conditions, and they have a variety of wearable devices now for continuous glucose monitoring that are popular. They're invasive though, can allow other people to learn about your medical history just by looking at you (depending on what you're wearing/which device you have), can complicate intimacy and contact sports, and in general the patients would be much happier if a smart watch could do it without specialized hardware. There is a lot (a lot) of history here that I think would help you test your assumptions on this.