5 ms·

For the sake of the patients, I hope there's a better long-term service plan than Second Sight Medical Products had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retina

For the sake of the patients, I hope there's a better long-term service plan than Second Sight Medical Products had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retinal_prosthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_retinal_prosthesis

stavros 1y ago
Sir, this is a Capitalism.
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  Well, yes. Capitalism is why the product could even be developed in the first place, and also why it ended the way it did.
  - OJFord 1y ago
    It's not the only imaginable way, but it is the society we (in the vast majority of the world) live in, and I agree it doesn't really make sense to bash something not continuing to exist unprofitably when it was developed for profit. It's annoying when software support ends for anything, phones, Nest Protect, (any Google product!), but I think best to bear it in mind in buying anything that it's a possibility, who are you relying on for what and what's their incentive to keep going.
    - wiz21c 1y ago
      Except when these guys pays millions in marketing to make you believe you can rely on them. If at least they would just say nothing instead of propagating their distorted vision.
    - crote 1y ago
      The problem is that companies are deliberately kneecapping their products by making cloud subscriptions mandatory and third-party repairs impossible. Refusing out-of-warranty repairs or discontinuing cloud services for obsolete products because it is no longer profitable wouldn't be such a big deal if third-party providers were able to replace OEM support. Traditionally, if I buy a $500 dishwasher, the OEM is responsible for repairs under warranty. When the warranty lapses it'll still keep working perfectly fine, and if something breaks I can go to one of a dozen repair shops in my local area. Same if the manufacturer goes bankrupt: it'll keep working, and I can still get it repaired. These days, if I buy a $500 tech product, it can turn into an expensive brick literally the next day, and there's nothing I could do about it. Even worse, it can happen because the OEM feels like it, not just because they went bankrupt! The fact that I own and possess the product has become completely meaningless, its fate is permanently in the hands of the manufacturer. Somehow we've ended up with all the downsides of renting/leasing, and all the costs of purchasing. It'll only get worse unless we start punishing companies for behaving like this.
      - noir_lord 1y ago
        All of which should be dealt with by governments. As an old post on usenix I liked (paraphrased) went “of course they shit on the floor, it’s a corporation, it’s what they do, the job of government is to be the rolled up newspaper applied to their nose when they do”. That’s the fundamental problem, our governments don’t stand up to businesses enough when they should and roll over too easily when they shouldn’t. The relationship is far too cosy at the top levels as well.
    - XorNot 1y ago
      The mixed market economy is how most of the productive world operates, with varying degrees of mixed. Laissez-faire capitalism has led to disaster time and time again, but even the US is not that system (far from it - arguably China is closer by many metrics). It is a reasonable argument for the regulatory state though - which is to say, delays to market from regulation could have reasonable origins - like requiring sustainment plans when you're going to do human implants which aren't removable. With the obvious counter-balance that the government and by extension the taxpayer should take on some of the risk if they truly want "rapid to market" development.
      - noir_lord 1y ago
        I’d agree that China is more of a laissez-faire system than the US with one proviso, the CCCP mostly stays out of it until it doesn’t and then they descend like the wrath of an angry and vengeful god. If you avoid that you have more freedom to operate as a corporation in China than in the US, of course in the US the corporations just buy sorry lobby the politicians. It used to be much more understated than it has been recently though, that they’ve pulled the mask off more over time suggests they think they can get away it. Interesting times.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      This isn’t a smartphone it’s someone’s sight dude. Surely the conversation should be slightly different?
      - OJFord 1y ago
        Of course sight is more serious than smartphone; my point is that if you rely on a for-profit company, then you should take that consideration (familiar from smartphones) more seriously for your sight. Occurs to me there was actually a Black Mirror episode on basically this in the latest season - not sight exactly, but a neurological implant of some kind. (Jacking subscription fees, removing features, etc., with real-world consequence.)
        Forgeties79 11mo ago
        I’m sorry but “caveat emptor” has its limitations as a legitimate argument in my book.
probably_wrong 1y ago
There's a long, detailed article on the lives of patients after Second Sight started downsizing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete
- Wingman4l7 1y ago
  Came here to post this in case it hadn't been. This case is very infamous in the disability & tech academic research community -- kind of their version of the Therac-25 in terms of ethics, damage to people, etc.
lta 1y ago
Free software is more important than ever
- pikuseru 1y ago
  Free healthcare as well
  - worldsayshi 1y ago
    As a citizen of a country with free healthcare, Sweden, I wonder how we deal with these issues. We dont exactly have a stellar record when it comes to software procurement in the health sector.
    - noir_lord 1y ago
      Neither do we in the UK. The most expensive IT failure in our governments history was healthcare related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health
      - worldsayshi 11mo ago
        That sounds eerily familiar to what happened in Sweden.
    - BurningFrog 1y ago
      Swedish healthcare is pretty cheap, but not free. It's typically $10-$50 per visit. Maxes out at $130 per year. This probably weeds out a lot of frivolous visits and keeps the system healthy.
- tjpnz 1y ago
  As is regulation of medical devices.
- devinprater 1y ago
  Accessibility of free software is more important than ever.
Forgeties79 1y ago
I can’t imagine going through all that, having your sight somewhat restored, and then quickly losing it because of lack of support by a private company. It reads like a sob story/sidequest from cyberpunk 2077
hyghjiyhu 1y ago
The way I would solve that is by requiring that any software / documentation required for the operation, maintenance and repair of medical implants must be stored with some appropriate government body. If the company becomes unwilling or unable to service the product the information is made public.
- trebligdivad 1y ago
  I've seen (commercial) software put in 'Escrow' before when a client uses it; effectively a lawyer (or similar) holds onto a copy so that if the original company goes under, then the buyer can get hold of it.
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    This is done whenever public utilities buy custom software.
- Wingman4l7 1y ago
  Unfortunately, documentation simply isn't sufficient. In addition to parts or components not being manufactured anymore, you also would have the likely bigger issue of clinicians being hesitant or unwilling to work with the hardware, and / or insurance not covering the doctor's time or procedures. I believe such things already happened with the Second Sight fiasco.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
The only "almost messed up" thing I could find about the service, was this: > Second Sight merged with Nano Precision Medical in August 2023 with a commitment to provide technical support for the Argus II Maybe you're alluding to something more than is mentioned in that article, did they not fulfill their commitment to provide the technical support in the end?
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  Three years later and after multiple people had re-lost their sight. It’s also an ongoing situation if I’m reading it correctly, not a solved one.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  > did they not fulfill their commitment to provide the technical support in the end? If they did not fulfill their commitment continuously, it's messed up.
rufus_foreman 1y ago
For some people, good news is always bad news.
utopiah 1y ago
I actually asked them about it https://bsky.app/profile/benetou.fr/post/3m3orbh5h7s2n https://bsky.app/profile/benetou.fr/post/3m3orbh5h7s2n and basically : - devices are not OSHW (and didn't comment on the new OSHWA open healtware initiative) - implants don't actually have firmware or even battery - devices connected to implants rely on their protocol Synapse https://github.com/sciencecorp/synapse-api https://github.com/sciencecorp/synapse-api So... arguably they haven't taken a positive stance on the topic IMHO but assuming the situation is as they describe (kind of an advanced mirror in the body connected to smarter stuff outside but that one could replace) it's not as terrible as others mentioned e.g. in the IEEE Spectrum article.
lazyant 1y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_People_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_People_(Black_Mirror)

stavros 1y ago

Sir, this is a Capitalism.

frumplestlatz 1y ago
Well, yes. Capitalism is why the product could even be developed in the first place, and also why it ended the way it did.
- OJFord 1y ago
  It's not the only imaginable way, but it is the society we (in the vast majority of the world) live in, and I agree it doesn't really make sense to bash something not continuing to exist unprofitably when it was developed for profit. It's annoying when software support ends for anything, phones, Nest Protect, (any Google product!), but I think best to bear it in mind in buying anything that it's a possibility, who are you relying on for what and what's their incentive to keep going.
  - wiz21c 1y ago
    Except when these guys pays millions in marketing to make you believe you can rely on them. If at least they would just say nothing instead of propagating their distorted vision.
  - crote 1y ago
    The problem is that companies are deliberately kneecapping their products by making cloud subscriptions mandatory and third-party repairs impossible. Refusing out-of-warranty repairs or discontinuing cloud services for obsolete products because it is no longer profitable wouldn't be such a big deal if third-party providers were able to replace OEM support. Traditionally, if I buy a $500 dishwasher, the OEM is responsible for repairs under warranty. When the warranty lapses it'll still keep working perfectly fine, and if something breaks I can go to one of a dozen repair shops in my local area. Same if the manufacturer goes bankrupt: it'll keep working, and I can still get it repaired. These days, if I buy a $500 tech product, it can turn into an expensive brick literally the next day, and there's nothing I could do about it. Even worse, it can happen because the OEM feels like it, not just because they went bankrupt! The fact that I own and possess the product has become completely meaningless, its fate is permanently in the hands of the manufacturer. Somehow we've ended up with all the downsides of renting/leasing, and all the costs of purchasing. It'll only get worse unless we start punishing companies for behaving like this.
    - noir_lord 1y ago
      All of which should be dealt with by governments. As an old post on usenix I liked (paraphrased) went “of course they shit on the floor, it’s a corporation, it’s what they do, the job of government is to be the rolled up newspaper applied to their nose when they do”. That’s the fundamental problem, our governments don’t stand up to businesses enough when they should and roll over too easily when they shouldn’t. The relationship is far too cosy at the top levels as well.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    The mixed market economy is how most of the productive world operates, with varying degrees of mixed. Laissez-faire capitalism has led to disaster time and time again, but even the US is not that system (far from it - arguably China is closer by many metrics). It is a reasonable argument for the regulatory state though - which is to say, delays to market from regulation could have reasonable origins - like requiring sustainment plans when you're going to do human implants which aren't removable. With the obvious counter-balance that the government and by extension the taxpayer should take on some of the risk if they truly want "rapid to market" development.
    - noir_lord 1y ago
      I’d agree that China is more of a laissez-faire system than the US with one proviso, the CCCP mostly stays out of it until it doesn’t and then they descend like the wrath of an angry and vengeful god. If you avoid that you have more freedom to operate as a corporation in China than in the US, of course in the US the corporations just buy sorry lobby the politicians. It used to be much more understated than it has been recently though, that they’ve pulled the mask off more over time suggests they think they can get away it. Interesting times.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    This isn’t a smartphone it’s someone’s sight dude. Surely the conversation should be slightly different?
    - OJFord 1y ago
      Of course sight is more serious than smartphone; my point is that if you rely on a for-profit company, then you should take that consideration (familiar from smartphones) more seriously for your sight. Occurs to me there was actually a Black Mirror episode on basically this in the latest season - not sight exactly, but a neurological implant of some kind. (Jacking subscription fees, removing features, etc., with real-world consequence.)
      - Forgeties79 11mo ago
        I’m sorry but “caveat emptor” has its limitations as a legitimate argument in my book.

probably_wrong 1y ago

There's a long, detailed article on the lives of patients after Second Sight started downsizing: https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete

Wingman4l7 1y ago
Came here to post this in case it hadn't been. This case is very infamous in the disability & tech academic research community -- kind of their version of the Therac-25 in terms of ethics, damage to people, etc.

lta 1y ago

Free software is more important than ever

pikuseru 1y ago
Free healthcare as well
- worldsayshi 1y ago
  As a citizen of a country with free healthcare, Sweden, I wonder how we deal with these issues. We dont exactly have a stellar record when it comes to software procurement in the health sector.
  - noir_lord 1y ago
    Neither do we in the UK. The most expensive IT failure in our governments history was healthcare related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Connecting_for_Health
    - worldsayshi 11mo ago
      That sounds eerily familiar to what happened in Sweden.
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    Swedish healthcare is pretty cheap, but not free. It's typically $10-$50 per visit. Maxes out at $130 per year. This probably weeds out a lot of frivolous visits and keeps the system healthy.
tjpnz 1y ago
As is regulation of medical devices.
devinprater 1y ago
Accessibility of free software is more important than ever.

Forgeties79 1y ago

I can’t imagine going through all that, having your sight somewhat restored, and then quickly losing it because of lack of support by a private company. It reads like a sob story/sidequest from cyberpunk 2077

hyghjiyhu 1y ago

The way I would solve that is by requiring that any software / documentation required for the operation, maintenance and repair of medical implants must be stored with some appropriate government body. If the company becomes unwilling or unable to service the product the information is made public.

trebligdivad 1y ago
I've seen (commercial) software put in 'Escrow' before when a client uses it; effectively a lawyer (or similar) holds onto a copy so that if the original company goes under, then the buyer can get hold of it.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago
  This is done whenever public utilities buy custom software.
Wingman4l7 1y ago
Unfortunately, documentation simply isn't sufficient. In addition to parts or components not being manufactured anymore, you also would have the likely bigger issue of clinicians being hesitant or unwilling to work with the hardware, and / or insurance not covering the doctor's time or procedures. I believe such things already happened with the Second Sight fiasco.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

The only "almost messed up" thing I could find about the service, was this: > Second Sight merged with Nano Precision Medical in August 2023 with a commitment to provide technical support for the Argus II Maybe you're alluding to something more than is mentioned in that article, did they not fulfill their commitment to provide the technical support in the end?

Forgeties79 1y ago
Three years later and after multiple people had re-lost their sight. It’s also an ongoing situation if I’m reading it correctly, not a solved one.
IAmBroom 11mo ago
> did they not fulfill their commitment to provide the technical support in the end? If they did not fulfill their commitment continuously, it's messed up.

rufus_foreman 1y ago

For some people, good news is always bad news.

utopiah 1y ago

I actually asked them about it https://bsky.app/profile/benetou.fr/post/3m3orbh5h7s2n https://bsky.app/profile/benetou.fr/post/3m3orbh5h7s2n and basically : - devices are not OSHW (and didn't comment on the new OSHWA open healtware initiative) - implants don't actually have firmware or even battery - devices connected to implants rely on their protocol Synapse https://github.com/sciencecorp/synapse-api https://github.com/sciencecorp/synapse-api So... arguably they haven't taken a positive stance on the topic IMHO but assuming the situation is as they describe (kind of an advanced mirror in the body connected to smarter stuff outside but that one could replace) it's not as terrible as others mentioned e.g. in the IEEE Spectrum article.

lazyant 1y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_People_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_People_(Black_Mirror)