SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Register reports: "Apple's bad hair day: Watch 'stripped' of health sensors":
Apple has ditched plans to make its new smart watch a health-monitoring device following problems with the technology and regulatory issues, according to reports.
Sources told The Wall Street Journal that some of the features were too complicated, while others would have prompted unwanted regulatory oversight. It said development of its health sensor technology has failed to meet standards, with inconsistency from sensor readings, arising from hairy arms or dry skin.
"Apple also experimented with ways to detect blood pressure or the amount of oxygen in the blood, but the results were inconsistent," said the paper.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Ditches Health-Monitoring Features from Watch
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
There's coffee in that nebula!
-- Capt. Kathryn Janeway, Star Trek: Voyager, "The Cloud"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday February 19 2015, @01:46AM
I'm the guy who modded you troll. I'm probably personally responsible for half the troll/flamebait mods mods around here, because I'm an uncooperative curmudgeonly asshole.
That said, it isn't hard to imagine a use case for heart rate detection when coupled with location data -- presumably people who are in specific locations with fast heart rates after not running (you can tell because GPS) are terrorists and need swatting. Seriously, why else would they be nervous?
(meeting a date, saw a hot dude/chick, reading an exciting book, just got a million dollar idea, too much coffee, and on forever)
Secondly, premium features become common. Once upon a time it was the rare phone that had GPS, and now you can only find GPS free phones in a thrift store bin. Cameras too -- now it's hard to find a phone without one. Biometric detection is all fancy right now, but in a few years I wouldn't be surprised if most handsets could detect at least heart rate, because you know, faster Ambulance response or some BS like that.
And lastly, because all of this information is collected by private companies, it is available to the government in a warrantless manner as a result of the third party doctrine. Seriously, if some business collects it, the government will figure out some way to use it to screw citizens.
Not all paranoia is unwarranted, but searches under the third party doctrine certainly are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19 2015, @09:48AM
Ah, preparing for rape.
No reading activity of purchased books on your ebook reader detected. Must be pirated stuff.
Ah, finished a robbery.
Ah, drug abuse.
SCNR ;-)
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Thursday February 19 2015, @03:17PM
So you're worried that every watch sold after the Apple iWatch will have biometric readings and communication chips that send data to private companies? Beyond that, you'll be required to wear any new watch with said features at all times until you die? Gotcha.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday February 19 2015, @03:45PM
OK smarty, where can I buy a GPS-free cell phone? At one time, GPS phones were exotic. Now it's a fucking law.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Thursday February 19 2015, @06:30PM
http://www.thuraya.com/xt-lite [thuraya.com]
Cell phones transmit digitally now, you can triangulate any cell phones position, even without GPS.
Comparing cell phones to watches is asinine. Also, they're both optional. People lived for quite some time without both and there is still a large number of people who don't have a cell phone.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Thursday February 19 2015, @06:39PM
Also, it's not the law:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2394177,00.asp [pcmag.com]
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-28/pdf/2011-24865.pdf [gpo.gov]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 19 2015, @07:06PM
I'm the guy who modded you troll.
I disagree with the parent post as well but what exactly was trollish about it?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday February 19 2015, @11:50PM
Troll: "Its a cheap (as in work for hours if you want it) consumer thing, not a right enshrined by the founding fathers."
Troll because it totally ignores the effect of the Third Party Doctrine which essentially decimates the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment, something the founders did actually enshrine in the Bill of Rights, and does so in a totally airy lighthearted manner, as if fundamental rights are a joke.
Moron: "They could sell the bulk data to the NSA until the cows come home and I'd still be happy."
Troll: "If the NSA then invades my asshole because of it... well, I can stop wearing it."
Invades my asshole? Again, making mockery of the serious ongoing relentless privacy violations of the Federal Gov't. Mocking the violation of fundamental human rights scores high on my trollometer.
Troll: "Tin foil hats protect you from more hazards than actually exist."
Need I explain? You're crazy if you believe the government will use data in nefarious ways because that hazard doesn't actually exist.
So yeah, troll was warranted. Maybe more flamebait, but I tend to distinguish between those a bit more loosely than I perhaps should. If he had mentioned nazis or used flagrant ad hominems, I'd have probably choses flamebait over troll, but either way, he deserved it when I gave it, and he deserves it even now that it has been errored into "insightful".