Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcavoybn | Hacker News Reader

I'm sorry but when the solution to your research paper is consumer technology sold by the company you work for, you are just advertising not innovating. Nothing about the apple watch itself is particularly useful for this, its just the fact that it goes on your wrist and has an accelerometer plugged into a computer with networking capabilities. (Wow, an accelerometer attached to your wrist can tell if you have tremors! Who knew?!?) The other 90% of the functionality of the watch is totally unnecessary. If apple actually cared they would create a new device for this particular use case.

View on HN

You might have missed it, but they’ve publicised every year the advances in ResearchKit. It’s been around for 6 years now, and has influenced the design of several generations of watches. They have partnerships with various hospitals and universities, and severalstudies that were made based on data from Apple Watches.

You are disingenuous when you reduce the device to an accelerometer with a network chip. But even so, the problem with a lot of clinical studies is not the complex equipment required. Instead, it’s enrolment, and the fact that you have to go to a lab to perform tests and that nothing that happens outside these tests is measured. This could be gait, heartbeat, sleep patterns, or a lot of other things. The fact that people keep their Apple Watches on their wrist all the time, and that it’s easy to enrol and that there are significant data protection measures in places helps with the most complicated aspects of running a large-scale study.

I would suggest reading at least a Wikipedia article before spewing uninformed bullshit.

>You might have missed it

I did miss that. Would love a citation.

>You are disingenuous

It doesn't make sense to say that I might have missed something then accuse me of being disingenuous. If what Apple is doing is really groundbreaking, then I really did miss something, and I'm not being disingenuous by thinking this article is BS. My response should serve as further proof of my GENUINITY.

Your second paragraph was hard to follow. I understand there is a wide variety of applications for Apple's 'watch' and that its 'cutting edge technology'. My issue has to do with the funny connection between a product that Apple markets to consumers and faux medical research articles created for the sole purpose of a citation in a marketing article. Seems kind of DISINGENUOUS of apple and this 'news' site.

>ResearchKit (an app in the apple store)

>It's easy to enroll

>publicized every year

>partnerships with various hospitals

Marketing

Enrollment has 2 Ls by the way.

> I did miss that. Would love a citation.

See every Apple Watch introduction keynote since 2015.

Also, straight from the horse's mouth: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...

Layman description on a mainstream website, from around when it was released: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/resea... https://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/inside-apples-resear...

As an example, announcement for one of the medical studies: http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2019/11/through-apple-...

> It doesn't make sense to say that I might have missed something then accuse me of being disingenuous

Not knowing is one thing. Not knowing, assuming the worse, and then taking your assumption for granted, is disingenuous. There would have been nothing wrong with asking instead of asserting.

> Your second paragraph was hard to follow.

Fair enough. Wording could be better.

> I understand there is a wide variety of applications for Apple's 'watch' and that its 'cutting edge technology'

The point of the Apple Watch is not that it's cutting edge, it's that it reduces friction in this sort of studies. It's also on and worn 24/7 so data is acquired around the clock, which is never the case in a large clinical study as measuring equipment tend to be expensive, bulky and inconvenient. As they (almost) say, the best sensor is the one you have with you.

> My issue has to do with the funny connection between a product that Apple markets to consumers and faux medical research articles created for the sole purpose of a citation in a marketing article.

See, that's disingenuous. You admitted that you were not really aware of it, and now you know that the studies are fake and just for press releases.

>ResearchKit (an app in the apple store)

ResearchKit is not an app on the App Store. It's one of the frameworks that's used in these studies.

>It's easy to enrol

Enroling is a notorious barrier to entry, it is objectively easier to tap a button on a phone app to enrol compared to walking to a clinic somewhere in the US and sign paperwork.

>publicised every year

Yearly publicity was addressing your state of ignorance. That's not marketing, it means that information is out there should you need it.

>partnerships with various hospitals

Fair enough, that's communication. Still does not support your assumptions, though.

> Enrollment has 2 Ls by the way.

Let's see...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/enrol?q=... :

enrol verb [ I or T ] UK (US enroll)

Apple has an opt-in Research app, and has built relationships with a number of orgs in the US doing medical research, and has added additional sensors based on feedback from those orgs.

There is quite a bit special about the Apple Watch itself well beyond the accelerometer, in software, in hardware, and in the work required to maintain privacy while sharing collective information with organizations devoted to researching diseases.

> its just the fact that it goes on your wrist and has an accelerometer plugged into a computer

That's incredibly underselling it as just an accelerometer, but missing the fact that it's not an off-the-shelf accelerometer and that there's a very capable computer inside it (plus an even more powerful computer in a pocket not too far away) to do the heavy data-processing required.

> If apple actually cared they would create a new device for this particular use case.

This theoretical device would have a smaller user base and would also cost an order of magnitude more. The magic of the Apple Watch is that it's a fairly inexpensive (and hence accessible) multi-purpose personal device used by millions.

You don't actually know this.

You're uncharitably assuming this, without any basis.

Apple's custom silicon, which includes the Watch line, has the best performance / power ratio in the entire business.

That might be important here. Do you know that it isn't? Of course you don't.

>You're uncharitably assuming this

Why should I be charitable towards apple?

>Apple's custom silicon

Sounds like more marketing for Apple.

Marketing has reached new levels

Reply on news.ycombinator.com