Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Hiring Spree of Biosensor Experts Continues As iWatch Team Grows
An anonymous reader writes "As the rumors surrounding Apple's mythical iWatch continue to swell, Apple has continued to hire folks with deep biomedical and sensor technology expertise. A previously unreported addition to Apple's growing cadre of medical device experts is Marcelo Malini Lamego, who began working at Apple this January. Before joining Apple this past January, Lamego spent 8 years as the CTO of Cercacor, a medical devices company with a focus on developing noninvasive monitoring technologies."
Because that's how Apple sells it to their public?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I can't see going after the market for fitness buffs because there just aren't enough of them who care about heart rates, etc. Everyone who goes to the gym isn't training for a triathlon.
I CAN see going after the chronically ill. That is a huge piece of the US/world population. If you could monitor things like blood sugar, heart rate/rhythm, blood pressure, blood oxygen/CO2 levels,etc., and detect anomalies and sound alarms this thing could be huge. I suppose all the fitness stuff would be a subset of this capability, so you'd get the fitness nuts and the ill with one device.
Knowing Apple, it will probably only work with iTunes, the worst POS software since Windows...
Doing medical sensing, making sure the data is accurate, especially in a mobile setting where the sensors are subject to movement, and understanding what the data means (mostly only astronauts have ever been subject to continuous medical sensing) are not easy. If they are just hiring experts now it will be a year or more before they have even a basic handle on the issues involved. If they want something FDA certified with data that can be easily digested by doctors it will take at least several years to bring a product to market. If they are just building another fitness device they probably already have it working. Possibly they'll try to position some medical-like sensing as non-medical so they don't have to get FDA certified and can avoid liability by claiming the device and apps are not intended for any medical/health purpose.
A beta-loving nonce wrote:
Quite the opposite. They're perfectly aware of the discrepancy which is why they call foul, in a vain attempt to educate any feckless hipster fucktards like you whose mom's might be reading slashdot to them.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Beta must die...
Nitpick, it was the Phoenicians who founded Carthage which in software parlance would make this first Carthage the Alpha version. It was the Alpha version that was destroyed by the Romans, not the Beta version. Carthage Beta came into existence when the Romans refactored the whole Carthage project after the fiery destruction of Carthage Alpha. Carthage Beta was eventually destroyed by the Arabs and what remained of it has today been absorbed by the still ongoing and highly successful Tunis project. Hope that cleared things up for everybody.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
The iWatch is intended solely for the use of the NSA.
Why else would they call it that?
Because they're imitating Apple's lawyers?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There are all kinds of biosensors available that don't connect to the Internet. An Apple device presumably will.
There is enough concern with the amount of information being collected with an iPhone. Consumers should be cautious about providing their personal health info with Apple. I would only hope whatever information is stored on Apple servers, it is regulated like other HIPAA info. At the least, if Apple needs to be HIPAA compliant and information is breached, big fines and other penalties will/should follow.
But I do see a connection between Apple marketeers and their faithful.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Troll or not, there's a good point made here. Apple doesn't seem to be doing anything that everyone else isn't already doing anymore. At least when the original iPhone came out in 2007 it had a real web browser, web apps, touch screen interface that didn't suck, etc. They were pretty much "never" going to do an iPad-mini...and then they followed that gravy train. Everyone jumped on the smartwatch game...and then Apple followed. Apple isn't doing their own thing any longer. They're merely trying to stay relevant at this point.
Disclaimer: I am an Apple product user. I like my iPhone 5. However, I tried and could not like iOS 7 (my primary iPhone is still on 6, and I'll stick with it for as long as possible), and admittedly for a few years I felt about my iDevices about the same as anything else - they serve the purpose, annoy me sometimes, whatever. Mildly ambivalent.
At the same time, I wasn't too excited about wearable computing. Watch-like devices that came out so far seemed to be trying the form factor without actually having figured out their purpose. They were poor answers to questions no one asked.
Then Apple does this. I have no idea what specifically "this" is but admittedly a "bio-metric" angle is intriguing. I am now somewhat curious and even a little excited to see what they will develop. This may be in part because as I got older, I've got a lot more careful about maintaining my health (whatever is left of it anyway). As part of that quest, I've been through a number of dedicated health-metric devices - and virtually all of them so far came up extremely short in both functionality, usability and integration. In fact, ironically, the most used "health" device is my iPhone which I consistently use for nutrition and fitness tracking.
So - great angle from Apple. Wish I could work on that project :)
You've fallen in love... you get ads for valentines. You're hungry... you get coupons for fast food. Your IPhone can have a "lie detector" app which gives you a little electric shock if you text a lame excuse. Big Brother is Won't Just Be Watching.
Gently reply
You are giving credit to the iPhone as being different enough from existing phones. However you are judging the iWatch (if there is such a thing) without knowing anything about it. For all you know the gap between existing "smartwatches" and the "iWatch" will be greater than the gap between then existing smartphones and the iPhone.
Why is the public perception that everything Apple does have to be something new that has never been done before?
Especially given the fact that Apple has never done anything that hasn't been done before...
... having worked on a whole bunch of biomedical measurements (including, but not limited to ECG, non-invasive blood pressure and SpO2) in the last 12 years.
Your vitriol is pathetic.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
That's absurd. Watch with higher funktionalities like calculator, PDA or so exist since the '80. There have been multiple models form a lot of different sources that have been released on regular basis. Some companies released a new model a year since 2000.
The thing that makes a smartphone is not calculator and PDA facilities. It's the ability to run third party apps as "first class citizens". i.e. downloadable software that has the same possibilities and UI as the built in apps (so featurephone stuff such as WAP and J2ME doesn't qualify.)
So surely a smartwatch should have the same qualification. Show me a watch that has an app store with full featured apps, and I'll accept it's a smartwatch. Show me a Casio calculator watch and I'll just laugh.
I am not sure that this will catch on given that iDevices need it every day.
Whereas this would make Oscar Wilde jealous, right?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Perhaps if they actually made the claims you thought they made.
An unsubstantiated claim about an unannounced product that may or may not include functionality relative to recent biometric hires is adequate to begin a flamefest. I love watching idiots argue about nothing they are privy to. Does one HAVE to be an idiot to be in the AndroidRox Club or does it just seem to draw those kind of people?
The thing that makes a smartphone is not calculator and PDA facilities. It's the ability to run third party apps as "first class citizens". i.e. downloadable software that has the same possibilities and UI as the built in apps (so featurephone stuff such as WAP and J2ME doesn't qualify.)
So surely a smartwatch should have the same qualification. Show me a watch that has an app store with full featured apps, and I'll accept it's a smartwatch. Show me a Casio calculator watch and I'll just laugh.
I don't know where your are pulling these definitions out. Did you come with those up yourself? Where's that normativ commity that qualifies what is a smartphone and not? Because last time I checked, the accepted understanding of what a smartphone (or smartwactch) are, are quite a bit broader. And if your think that the smart watches available in the last two decades limit themselfs to have PDA and calculators funktionalities, which were funcitonalities found in the '80, as I clearly mentionned I believe, you should go an read a bit about the history of smart watches.
Definition is from working mostly in the mobile industry since 1997, including on the teams making some of the early smartphones. The smartphone definition is widely misused. But if you look for a distinction between the functionalities of a "featurephone" and a "smartphone", you'll find it is what I told you.
And if your think that the smart watches available in the last two decades limit themselfs to have PDA and calculators funktionalities, which were funcitonalities found in the '80
I merely commented on what you brought up. I'm reasonably aware of the various watches that computer companies have tried since the 80s. Though less so than I am of mobile phones. Nevertheless, I don't need to read any history. I lived it.
I consider someone turning to ridicule an action or person based on a obviously and willingly flawed logic a troll, that especially when it is wirtten in a tone like the one you use.
I tried to illustrate how flawed your logic is. I do not care about your opinion and I will never comment or judge an opinion here. But a flawed logic of false statement, I will. If I believe the facts your state are false, I will comment on it. And that is what I did.
Not being able to post on what I believe is a flawed statement and moderate at the same time, I allowed myself to express my opinion on my perception of your comment (seen as a troll comment), while still make a remark on the content of your post. From the moderation my comment got, I believe this approach did not come across well and I will refrain of doing it in the future.