Apple Rumored To Be Exploring Medical Devices, Electric Cars To Reignite Growth 255
An anonymous reader writes "The Apple rumor mill is alive and well. This time around the tech giant is rumored to be looking into exploring medical sensor technology related to predicting heart attacks, and might even buy Tesla. 'Taken together, Apple's potential forays into automobiles and medical devices, two industries worlds away from consumer electronics, underscore the company's deep desire to move away from iPhones and iPads and take big risks. "Apple must increasingly rely on new products to reignite growth beyond the vision" of late founder Steve Jobs, said Bill Kreher, an analyst with Edward Jones Investments in St. Louis. "They need the next big thing."'"
Apple buys tesla?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finally a car-analogy that isn't!
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing already made its way into the car industry years ago with OnStar; VW just introduced something similar called "Car-Net"; I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's cars already include something similar, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep up with the Tesla news very closely, and that guy is on a mission, and its primary goal is not money. He REALLY wants to rid the world of CO2 emissions as much as possible, and he'll do anything to see that goal is met.
Re:Buy samsung instead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>you could fix so many other things just like apple did with...
They've certainly spearheaded great refinements, now if only they'd stop insisting on incorporating their own brand of intentional breakage into them I'd consider actually buying their products.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait (Score:2)
- "Yes honey, I've seen the new 2019 iPad but I think that Microsoft stuff has gotten way better after being acquired by Lenovo, I think I'll buy the Officepad 10 HHHHHHHHHNNGGGGGGGGGGGG!"
Not a good sign (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got the companies that ossify, refusing to do anything even slightly disruptive to their cash cows, which they contentedly milk until the world changes around them. Then you've got the companies that (whether because of internal hubris and megalomania, or because Wall Street Demands It) decide that merely making tons of money isn't good enough, and anything less than 'malignant tumor' growth rates are utterly unacceptable, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still wondering which we're going to see first: a donut with pizza fillings* from Dunkin Donuts or a custard-filled stuffed crust from Pizza Hut.
* a Hot Pocket isn't a donut.
Re: (Score:3)
It always seems that when companies start trying to branch out into wildly dissimilar industries, it's a sign of trouble within the organization. Do what you do well, figure out how to do it better if things aren't going how you'd like them. Don't try making sushi if you've always sold donuts.
Google's in a similar boat. Self driving cars, robots, barges in the San Francisco bay...
If Apple bought Tesla, they should just buy a controlling stake to keep Google away from purchasing Tesla, and then let Tesla keep doing it's thing. Make Apple's tremendous software design resources available for Tesla, but don't try and micro manage.
But as I said, everyone is doing the same branching out. I agree it's not a good sign, but at this point, we've run out of innovation steam on mobile and most of PC, so com
Re: (Score:2)
Also some companies greatest growth happens when they buy into a dissimilar industry. It is a risk, sometime you win, where your brand name somehow complements the product and sometimes it fails miserably.
Also there are a lot of products owned by other companies that you have no idea who the real company behind it is.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO that works well when your strength is in manufacturing products. This is why Lenovo's aquisition of IBM worked. They are a vertically integrated company which can have much lower costs of manufacturing than IBM ever could all they needed was a brand to sell their own products. Apple is the complete opposite of that. For me it seems like utter nonsense to enter a different market like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does have have a strong strength in manufacturing.
A lot of their product designs are actually rather hard to manufacture Those curved metal that are near seamless, glass cut to nice curves. To have the product sold at nearly the same cost of its competitor who have products that are much simpler to make (molded plastic). Apple cannot create and sell a product that will take a craftsman days to make they need to be mass produced.
Re: (Score:2)
The mp3 player was not an industry that Apple was involved in but they saw a way that they could leverage their expertise and connections to provide a better user experience than the existing companies in that market did.
Same with the iPhone. Are you suggesting that it was foolish for Apple to go into those markets?
The brick
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is Apple did that with internal resources and minor acquisitions. Plus the products themselves were not that different from what they were used to building its still consumer electronics. To call a car a consumer electronics product is nonsensical.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I'm talking more about the medical device rumor. And my guess is that they aren't initially going to be medical devices in the traditional sense. They'll be fitness/wellness enhancing devices along the lines of what Fitbit/Polar and to a certain extent Garmin produce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Like Google buying Nest.
Re: (Score:2)
The same thing is true of computer programs - the good ones have a clear job they do well, and when they start with the featuritis is when they go bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, good news -- the only "not a good sign" you're seeing is from these idiot analysts who, collectively, are wrong about 90% of the time when it comes to Apple. If you care to hear what Apple themselves have to say...
WSJ: Apple has never made a billion-dollar acquisition. Google is snapping up everyone including your old friends at Nest. Does this alter how you think about bigger deals?
Cook: We've looked at big companies. We don't have a predisposition not to buy big companies. The money is also not burning a hole in our pocket where we say let's make a list of 10 and pick the best one. We're not doing that. We have no problem spending ten figures for the right company that's the right and that's in the best interest of Apple in the long-term. None. Zero.
But we're not going to go out and buy something for the purposes of just being big. Something that makes more fantastic products, something that's very strategic -- all these things are of interest and we're always looking regardless of size.
WSJ interview with Tim Cook, 2/14/2014 [wsj.com]
If you've been paying attention to Apple for the last 15 years, you know they aren't usually stupid, panicky, or reactionary. Remember when everyone was saying the *had* to make a netbook? And then they didn't, and then that market segment dissolved? An
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia did that just fine (for a pretty while at least). So, branching out doesn't have to spell doom.
Re: (Score:2)
A Good Sign (Score:2)
Yeah, Steve Jobs, don't try making phones or music players if you've always sold computers. Actually, don't even starting making computers if you've always made Atari games. Actually, maybe you've got the whole thin
Re: (Score:2)
One thing is to look at the next paradigm shift in your own industry. i.e. products that will replace your product at its target market application. Another wholly different thing is getting into a market which has *nothing* to do with your market. Then again this is Apple. Their current CEO is not a guy with any sort of college education or background into actually working in computer hardware or software products. He may actually try a dumbass ITT move like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Branching out from OS software to office software isn't that big a move. Branching out from oil drilling to capturing natural gas (which is produced from oil drilling anyway) is very natural, and branching out into other energy sources isn't such a huge leap either.
But WTF do mobile devices and cars have to do with each other? Not much. Sure, modern cars (esp. the Tesla) do have computers integrated to provide information to the driver, but there's a lot more to a car than just the driver-facing computer
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but there's a lot more to a car than the electronics. A mobile phone or laptop or tablet has nothing but electronics (unless you count the battery or the hard drives (laptop only)). Cars have a big electric motor which needs its own control system and cooling system, wheels, hydraulic brakes, suspension, steering, air conditioning, a chassis designed to be survivable in crashes, airbags, seats, and lots of other mechanical bits and pieces. Yes, there's a lot of electronics in a modern car, but the
Re: (Score:2)
If Google intends to sell cars that would probably be a good idea, but I've seen no evidence that they have any intention of doing so, and it would probably be pretty foolish to move into something so far outside their core expertise. They're a data-processing company, I think it's far more likely that they end up licensing "cyber-chauffeur" technology to car companies who haven't been able to come up with their own viable solution.
Now Apple on the other hand, they're primarily an industrial design and int
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see both Apple and MS out of business, and Google severely downsized back to a search engine and not too much more.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
iPhones and iPads make Apple an obscene amount of money and they are in a controlling position in the market. It should go without saying that they don't have "a deep desire to move away" from them. Add new product categories? Sure. Move away from iPhones and iPads? Nope.
Growth is a bullshit metric. A company with one customer can grow their user base 1000% by getting to ten customers. A company with hundreds of millions of customers can't grow like that. Growth naturally slows as a company gets larger. Only bullshit artists looking to get page views or prop up a stock price blather on about how Apple need the next big thing to continue growing. They don't need to continue growing. They are raking money in faster than just about any other company. Trying to grow at the same rate as they have done in previous years is not only a ludicrously unachievable expectation to place on them, it's probably bad for business if they were stupid enough to try. Apple's core strength has always been a small, focused product family.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, what you say is spot on, but unfortunately it doesn't map to the reality of what the stock market deems a "successful" company - one that grows and hence expands it's share price. Too many investors are of the buy low, sell high variety, rather than the dividends variety, so if you don't want to cater to that mindset you should probably just go private else you can only expect to carry on hearing people tell you you're a "failure" because you only pulled in $20bn last quarter instead of $22bn.
Yes it'
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they realize that while the cash cow is iStuff, it won't be that way forever. Because just a little over 5 years ago, the cash cow was... iPods. Now iPods sell even less than Macs.
Oh yeah, 5 years before THAT, the hot cash cow was
Re: (Score:2)
Because everybody who used to buy iPods now buys iPhones instead, which does everything an iPod does and more. They didn't lose sales, they moved their customers over to a more expensive product.
Are you saying that Apple have a product waiting in the wings that's an entire replacement for an iPhone but earns them more money? If not, what's your explanation for the idea that they want to move away f
Re: (Score:2)
The 'cash cow' was Steve Jobs.
You look at every single time Apple came back from the dead:
- Turning the business loser Lisa into the succesful Macintosh phenomenon
- Coming back from Next and bringing what would eventually become iOS and the iThingy phenomenon
That was Steve Jobs.
There ain't no bringing him back this time and Apple's never been anything than a flash in the pan that was fueled by Steve Jobs business savvy.
Granted it will take some time but they will fade into the obscurity they were headed tow
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they need a new product. Their profits in the mp3 player market have basically evaporated and the smartphone market is getting commoditized as would be expected to happen in any mature market. They may grow for a couple of years more as they finally get contracts with telecoms operators in China and India but then its gonna go down. Especially when the competition can manufacture a superior products that costs less. I expect them to shrink to 10% of the market just like happened to them with PCs. T
Apple Car Troubles (Score:3, Funny)
Any issues with the car will probably be blamed on the driver. "Your car doesn't accelerate properly because you're holding the steering wheel incorrectly."
Re: (Score:2)
changelog for CiOS 3 9/21/16 update:
- iPhone-based ignition system bugfixes - now requires latest iOS build to start
- iTunes integration update - hitting the horn button no longer plays random track from Library
- Emergency braking converted to premium service, requires new EULA agreement
Not so stupid as it many people here seem to think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has never been a growth-first company (Score:5, Insightful)
Analysts want Apple to run the company their way, and Apple is refusing to do it. Good for them in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with returning it to shareholders? They own the company. Apple started up a decent dividend and the largest share buyback in history. This is the right move.
"wealth has become so concentrated that those who have it can't figure out any useful way to spend it, and th
17 Macbook Pro (Score:3, Interesting)
Reports of Apple relevance are greatly exaggerated (Score:2, Insightful)
With the passing of Jobs, I'm pretty sure everyone must realize that Apple's relevance is simply fading away. I know this sounds like a troll and perhaps in some ways it is.
Despite the fact that I disliked Jobs and all that, there's no denying he was extremely effective. Despite the fact that I think he help the company from overtaking the business marketplace, he probably did it for extremely good reasons. He probably kept the company from making huge mistakes and from being hugely liable for all sorts o
How about just greater openness on their devices? (Score:2)
It seems to me the lightning connector, for all of its mechanical advantages over the 30 pin, also came with a lot of new restrictions and complications, all designed to keep Apple in control.
It seems to me that they're stifling innovative uses via third party accessories which seems to encourage people to find other platforms which could ultimately shrink their user base.
It's just one example, but in a lot of ways I would think they would want to encourage the iPhone/iPad as more general purpose devices wi
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had thought to mention that myself, but my rant was already pretty long.
Yes. Apple loves to restrict and limit. And they don't care what it costs the end user. "No, you cannot replace the battery. If we let you do that, other companies would make compatible batteries and extended life batteries and all that mess. Also, we want to make sure we can find you and your phone. It must be on at all times even if you think it's off."
I'm starting to rethink who the good guys and who the bad guys were
Re: (Score:2)
I'm less concerned with stuff like the battery or other kinds of hardware engineering questions.
When it was new, the idea of a non-replaceable battery seemed dumb, but having owned 4 iPhones since and two iPads, it doesn't really seem to matter and frankly it's just as easy/convenient to carry a spare generic USB charging battery as it would be a phone battery if I'm doing the kind of traveling where I will be away from power and worried about depleting my battery. Every other use case seems to be covered
Re: (Score:3)
All true. They're going down. When the Lisa was their flagship loser Jobs went psycho and made the macintosh a winner.
They kicked him out and started going downhill. He got what was eventually to become iOS developed at NeXt before bringing it back to an Apple that needed resuscitation once again and the iThingy revolution saved their asses.
Then he decides to get all hippy dippy refusing conventional medicine which most likely would have saved his life and as a result kicked the bucket earlier than was n
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple tech itself is great. It's what they "allow you to do with it" that angers me. It's really as simple as that. They make cool things and then they restrict, limit and lock them down. Case-in-point? Copy-Paste was a feature of second generation iPhone and newer releases of iOS. They didn't omit it because it never occurred to them. It was a limitation they put in there by design and ended up going back on because people were pretty upset about it. And saving attachments in email? Is that sti
Re: (Score:2)
You saw it first when Microsoft users were refusing to upgrade. The same is beginning to be true of Apple stuff.
Cars? (Score:2, Funny)
Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?
Apparently, now it's Google.
(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?
Apparently, now it's Google.
(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)
Hmmm... I thought Creative made the first portable MP3 player. And I know that Apple didn't invent the PC.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember when Apple was the company that came out with revolutionary new products and the rest of the industry followed them?
Apparently, now it's Google.
(Oh, and who would trust Steve Jobs' company to make their medical devices? Yes I am speaking both to his general approach to ethics, and the circumstances of his death.)
Apple:
- Not the first smartphone
- Not the first touch phone
- Not the first MP3 player
- Not the first GUI
- Not the first All-In-One
- Not the first platform for media production
- Not the first selling media
Apple's strength was, under Jobs, an impeccable sense of timing to enter the market, and marketing. They were great at making people think they were innovating, and made hundreds of billions doing it. There's nothing wrong with that except that they fundamentally weren't innovating, and they're not so good
Re: (Score:2)
Tim Cook, by all accounts, is a health/fitness nut and doesn't believe in the 'eastern medicine' philosophy that did in Jobs. Not sure if you have noticed, but Tim runs the company now.
Pace Makers and Cochlear Implants (Score:2, Funny)
Ask yourself this... do you trust Apple with your pace maker? Your cochlear implant?
Would you trust MICROSOFT with your pace maker (holy hellzapoppin' no)
I can just see it... " Your cochlear implant has reached it's maximum amount of words amplified for the day. In order to hear more today, you need to upgrade to MICROSOFT COCHLEAR PROFESSIONAL 8.1" or even worse "Oh shit. I'm sorry, I can't do anything else today. I'm only using PaceMaker XP and if my heart beats more than 86,400 times today, my pace m
Enough with the commas - it's ambiguous, out-dated (Score:2)
Apple Rumored To Be Exploring Medical Devices[, ]Electric Cars To Reignite Growth
The word you're looking for is "and."
*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Apple rumor mill is alive and well."
And, you can stop reading right there. Analysts are idiots, and rumors usually turn out to be wrong.
As for growth... "Last year, we grew (revenue) by $14 billion to $15 billion. Yes, those percentages are smaller compared to a year earlier and two years earlier and so forth. But that doesn't mean that you're not a growth company. We were in hyper-growth, or whatever is above growth. We went from $65 billion to over $100 billion to $150 billion to $170 billion. These are historic, unprecedented numbers. I don't know any companies adding growth at that level. So when you say $14 billion to $15 billion compared to those numbers, it's clearly smaller and a smaller percentage, but, to put it in some context, that's like adding three Fortune 500 companies in a year. [emphasis mine] I think that's hard to say that's not a growth company."
--Tim Cook to the WSJ Feb 7, 2014 [wsj.com]
sounds familiar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see them try that in TX and then I will call them and say You can pick the bodys of the next guys who show up.
Yeah. Right. (Score:2)
Apple may do most of the pioneering work. But they'll never stay in those areas.
Quite simply, they don't want the hassle of having to deal with industries.
Deep down, Apple wants (and needs) to be the artsy-fartsy choice for computers and media consumption devices.
They simply don't have the mindset to fix problems for people who don't give a flying fuck about the Apple/Mac "aesthetic", and simply want their business equipment to work without having to dick around with it too much.
They don't want to have to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand this comment. Apple will build a medical device/wearable, then sell it off? The number of scientific hires they have made recently is simply astounding. I doubt very much they are creating a product to abandon shortly after.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, medicine and the treatment of illness is a real global conspiracy alright.
Re:Take medicine away from the wizards (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, medicine and the treatment of illness is a real global conspiracy alright.
Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.
Next time you need a fairly major medical procedure, refuse to pay until you get an itemized bill - you'll be amazed at some of the bullshit they try and charge you for; $50 for the off-brand Sharpie they used to mark your skin, for example.
Re:Take medicine away from the wizards (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...
Re: (Score:2)
I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...
I can't speak for places outside the US because I haven't been there, but I'd bet dollars to pesos that Big Pharma has it's claws in a few more governments than just the US'.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that;s probably more of a national conspiracy (in the US) than a global conspiracy...
I can't speak for places outside the US because I haven't been there, but I'd bet dollars to pesos that Big Pharma has it's claws in a few more governments than just the US'.
I highly doubt that the pen has anything to do with big pharma. They probably are very inexpensive for the surgical center. But they have so many people skip out on bills and insurance companies try and screw doctors over. My doctor wanted me to try a medical device for some pain I was having. He put it through to the insurance where my copay was going to be $500. The doctor sold it to me for his cost - $90. The reason for the discrepancy? He has to charge the insurance big time $$ just to recoup his
Re: (Score:2)
It's not global as in reaches absolutely everywhere to the same degree, but a lot of that is because it's not as cost effecti
Re:Take medicine away from the wizards (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Take medicine away from the wizards (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you don't need a conspiracy to explain the broken conditions in the US. Just an obsession with free market solutions in a field that can never be a free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, the fact that a lack of immediate care from the first available source causes you to die is what stifles competition. You can't take your time and shop around when you're bleeding out on the floor. It doesn't work.
Incompetence does not require conspiracy (Score:3)
Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.
That is a matter of incompetence and bad policy. Lot's of people in the US love to insist that we have the best healthcare system in the world and that nothing is broken despite the fact that we pay the most (by a wide margin) and do not get even close to the best outcomes by most measures.
Re:Incompetence does not require conspiracy (Score:4, Interesting)
Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.
That is a matter of incompetence and bad policy.
Bad policy I can't disagree with (since good policy would probably fix a lot of these issues), but I've always been a believer in the concept that you should never attribute to incompetence that which can be explained by greed and avarice.
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.
That's an uninformed position. There are many factors contributing to the high prices in US health care, but the heart of the matter is third party payer. Whenever you pay someone else to pay the bill for you, especially when the goods or services delivered are opaque as they are in health care, the cost tends to escalate. Combine this with government tax incentives that have historically tied health care to employment, adding another layer of payment indirection between the consumer and the health care pro
Re: (Score:2)
Keeping the cost of it high seems to be.
That's an uninformed position.
Says the person who writes an entire paragraph without a single source citation.
the litigious nature of American society in general
Complaining about malpractice suit awards? See, now I know you're full of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if I'm having a hart attack my best course of action is to be a smart shopper, make sure I select the best offer before proceeding with being treated?
Every hospital in the United States is required to provide life saving treatment, regardless of whether you have insurance or not. That hasn't changed and it's not the issue here. The "heart attack" example is a liberal canard used to distract attention from the issue of costs and how best to address them.
Re:Take medicine away from the wizards (Score:4, Interesting)
What does the requirement to provide life-saving treatment have to do with anything? It helps people who are so broke that they have no assets, but it doesn't help anyone else.
You have a heart attack, you get treated at a hospital which is required to do so; you're insured but not adequately, and you get a bill for $50,000 more than your insurance covers. Welcome to medical bankruptcy.
Now, how exactly are you supposed to shop around, rather than just taking the first-available treatment? Sure, they're required to provide that treatment whether or not you can pay -- but if you can pay, they're going to do everything in their power to be sure that you will.
In my wife's case, it wasn't a heart attack, but brain surgery -- and while she was in the hospital, her employer went out of business. Her insurance policy disappeared with them, and she was personally on the hook for follow-up care, wiping out years of savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, I'm going to walk you through this step by step. I'm not trying to patronize here, but each step follows from and builds upon the previous step so it's important to understand all of the steps from start to finish. So with that in mind here we go:
1. What is the purpose of insurance, any insurance not just health insurance? The concept is simple enough, it's about offsetting risk. Suppose that we want to insurance against the costs of a certain adverse event, whether that be a major medical expense
doctors don't see those charges (Score:2)
and when my first cardiologist looked through my itemized bill, he was agahst. "$50 for THAT?!?" $40 for this? $32 for aspirin???" they are not taught in medical school the overhead costs of having this shot of morphine and that bag of D5W right at hand in the operating room, and not in some deadbeat's arm in a linen closet.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: the word "doctors" does not appear anywhere in my post.
Re:Take medicine away from the wizards (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple could be in a position to leverage advances in sensing technology to make medicine cheaper and much more accessible.
Low prices is Apple's motto all right
Re: (Score:2)
Apple markup may be the fattest in the industry but if anyone can kick the bottom out of medical device pricing while still making an enormous profit, they're the company to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
When they entered the mobile phone business, they kicked the bottom out of pricing for third party developers.
Re: (Score:2)
When the iPad, the biggest surprise was the $499 price tag, no one thought it could be done at that price.
When the iPhone was introduced, the CEO of Blackberry claimed it was faked, it couldn't be done at that price, or any price.
And for years now, you couldn't build a MacBook pro equivalent (same or very similar parts) for less than what Apple sells.
So, Apple doesn't sell cheap stuff, but they do make it price competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, tablets as capable as the ipad for much cheaper abound. The iPad is still expensive.
And yet, the CEO of BlackBerry didn't exactly understand the cost of things, as the iphone was not the first touch-screen handheld.
And yet, Razer has created something more powerful than the MBP for less than the equivalently specced MBP. Also, Microsoft has released a piece of hardware specced like the Air, but with a high resolution display and a touchscreen, for less than the Air.
So, no.
Re: (Score:2)
All this data fed into the cloud in real time and analyzed for problems? What's not to like?
False positives? Imagine how much money doctors would make off of all those unnecessary visits.
Save us Apple. You're our only hope! (Score:4)
Apple could be in a position to leverage advances in sensing technology to make medicine cheaper and much more accessible.
Right... because Apple is really known for driving prices down.
They're also big enough to beat down the FDA and Wizard lobby (aka Doctors).
Damn right, 'cause the FDA and doctors are just evil. Those criminals try to make sure our drugs are safe and that our illnesses get treated. We should rely on the magic of market forces for that. Apple should invent a device that replaces them. [/sarcasm]
All this data fed into the cloud in real time and analyzed for problems? What's not to like?
Lets see... Maybe the fact that there is no actual product and even if there were there are all sorts of likely privacy, security and data interpretation problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The original iPad was (and still is) fabulously overpriced for what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple might be more innovative in the medical device field if they began by marketing in India or China first, where there is less monopoly control of medicine. As soon as Western medical tourists there, who are becoming legion, start getting wind of effective Apple devices they can't get in their own countries, pressure for change will come from the general public.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, fewer than 1% of users suffer "blue screams of death" as a result of any given non-optional automatic update. And such users can usually be rebooted after installing an iBrain and any other iSelf modules not already purchased. WARNING: behavioral changes may occur, and any proclivity to destroy other electronics to gnaw on their microprocessor "brains" should be reported immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about products. It's about access to your health data when you can trivially generate good quality long term trends.
A number of people don't think you should be able to access your own blood chemistry reports, DNA, MRI, charts, and other medical data.
Those are inputs into expert systems sometimes that very may reveal trends that could save your life. They are also inputs that can be analyzed offshore at very low cost - in different regulatory environments.
This isn't about snake tonic. This is abo
Re: (Score:3)
no
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather trust Apple to have up-to-date software for their cars than any other company out there. Remember cars with Windows CE?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, these days it's all about X-Men and The Avengers.