More than 750,000 hospitalizations occur each year because of AFib. The condition contributes to an estimated 130,000 deaths each year. The death rate from AFib as the primary or a contributing cause of death has been rising for more than two decades.3,4
AFib costs the United States about $6 billion each year. Medical costs for people who have AFib are about $8,705 higher per year than for people who do not have AFib.
AFib Facts An estimated 2.7–6.1 million people in the United States have AFib. With the aging of the U.S. population, this number is expected to increase. Approximately 2% of people younger than age 65 have AFib, while about 9% of people aged 65 years or older have AFib. African Americans are less likely than those of European descent to have AFib. Because AFib cases increase with age and women generally live longer than men, more women than men experience AFib.[1]
I think the inclusion of a ECG and afib detection is going to make a huge difference in many people's lives.
Also consider that they may have raised the price, but not hugely significantly. I've had two ECGs done in the past year, and I'm sure each one cost my insurance more than the price difference of the watch.
One of my friends is highly skeptical of Apple's privacy and who will have access to this data, but as far as I can tell Apple does not have access to, or share health data with anyone. Although, maybe we should be concerned about people giving insurance access to this data without realizing the implications to their coverage/premiums.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_atr...
By default, the data stays on your device or is encrypted end-to-end if you store it in iCloud. A while back you could share your heart data for a health study, but you had to opt in.
But given Apple's stance and track record with privacy I'd be amazed if they violated that with health data.
I could go on and on about the insurance cost of an EKG. You can buy the EKG (well, at least a decent Holter monitor) for less than what insurance charges to rent it for a day.
I'm quite content with my Garmin Fenix, but this is the one reason I'm considering an Apple Watch this round. I have had (still have?) Wolf-Parkinson's syndrome, had the ablation, haven't had problems since. But, you know, it'd be an excuse to buy a new gadget, right? And it does look like Apple Watch might finally start being usable as a running watch.
And, man, what I would've given for the ECG fifteen years ago when the docs were trying to get a repro. Wore a big mobile ECG thing for a few weeks, then gave up. I don't know that it's fit for purpose, but it would have been nice to just wear an Apple Watch until it repro'ed rather than time-boxing it with a rented device.
The problem I see with the watch is that you have to manually start it (30 seconds touching the crown).
I think the QardioCore needs the app to record this, but I am not sure.
Average cost of an ECG in the US is $188.
That was technically with insurance, but on a high-deductible plan so I basically paid it out of pocket.
So I went out and bought a few nice automatic watches, and I’ve been incredibly happy since. Each of my watches tells time, each looks good, and each will still be running years after every smart watch sold in 2016 is powered off.
This particular Apple watch is IMHO too big, and mesh bracelets look very 1980s to me.
Although automatic watches in the price range of an Apple Watch - $300-500 - can be pretty durable, their service costs are high enough to justify replacing the damn thing with a new watch once that time rolls around in 5-10 years.
I eventually bought one and I wear it every single day. Things I do with it:
1. Most important feature is notifications from iMessage, WhatsApp, SMS and a small number of apps that I want notifications from (e.g. British Airways app telling me which gate to go to). On occasion I reply using the watch.
2. Meeting reminders. I go to a lot of meetings. Knowing when they are coming up and where they are is super useful.
3. Activity. I like the gentle push to make me walk a bit more.
4. Timers. Use these often when cooking or making tea.
I have an original Apple Watch. Not sure the Series 4 is compelling for me, but the health features are what will drive me to buy a new watch at some point.
If you do use a smartphone, then a smart watch is quite close to the tracking part (except for some additional data collection about heart rate that you may consider invasive).
>and mesh bracelets look very 1980s to me.
You know you can get different bands. I have a leather band--admittedly way too expensive--but it's very nice leather and is very comfortable.
https://www.androidcentral.com/amazfit-verge-new-smartwatch-...
Haptic feedback removes the most crippling weakness of the touchscreen, the inability to use it without looking.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that. But it does make interacting with a touch screen feel a lot more "physical".
That is, I expect the natural response to most of these feedbacks is to look at your watch. That not the case?
Not that they do it on the watch, but it could also have a ratcheting-type feel when you scroll to indicate a) that you're scrolling or b) how fast you're scrolling.
The Steam Controller actually used this to great effect.
Out of FAANG, I find Apple the closest to capitulation because they need to keep their luxury product audience buying their product instead of competitors who seem more willing to take risks.
Every Apple announcement seems more like an 'evolution than revolution' per the article, and this doesnt seem any different.
Is this the best watch on the market?
EDIT: whoops- PRAISE APPLE, thank you steve jobs for your sacrifice.
In the current context, if introducing an FDA approved ECG in a consumer device is not revolutionary, then I don’t know what you mean by that term.
Some quotes from articles on this topic of incremental changes on Fast Company and Daring Fireball.
> When critics ding Apple for its failure to introduce “breakthrough” devices and services, they are missing three key facts about technology: First, that breakthrough moments are unpredictable outcomes of ongoing, incremental innovation; second, that ongoing, behind-the-scenes innovation brings significant benefits, even if it fails to create singular disruptions; and, third, that new technologies only connect broadly when a mainstream audience is ready and has a compelling need. “The world thinks we delivered [a breakthrough] every year while Steve was here,” says Cue. “Those products were developed over a long period of time.” [1]
> But even when Apple enters new product categories, they don’t invent the categories themselves. The iPad wasn’t the first tablet. The iPhone wasn’t the first smartphone or touchscreen handheld device. The iPod wasn’t the first digital music player. [2]
> Historically, those sorts of big new things have only come two or three times per decade. [2]
[1]: http://www.fastcompany.com/3062090/tim-cooks-apple/playing-t...
[2]: https://daringfireball.net/2014/02/fitting_facts_to_the_narr...
Without a doubt. Google Wear lacks focus, Pebble is dead, and there's more offerings like Garmin or Fitbit that are nice but have a smaller scope. But yes, this is still an "evolutionary" release.
But they're huge even for 6 ft. large-limbed me.
And I could never get my remanufactured Fenix 3 to consistently measure distance accurately on twisty turny trails no matter what settings I played with.
Battery life is definitely still an issue. In fact, I often travel with just a cheap Timex so it's one less thing I need to bother with.
Everyone is absolutely entitled to their own use case and should buy whatever suits them. It's a free market.
Does it really? I think this is an exaggeration. I went from a 10.5mm first-generation Apple Watch (which is thinner that this one!) to a 11.4mm Series 2, and I couldn't notice the difference. So I'm not optimistic on this being a perceivable difference–I guess I'll see on Friday.
I don't really like the Apple Watch, so my bias is limited. But, I've had a S0 (returned), S1 (returned), and S2 (sits on night stand most of the time).
For whatever reason, the S2 is noticeably thinner and more comfortable for me. It may be because I have relatively small, bony wrists but YMMV.
Hell, I'm not sure how Apple measures the thinness, but eyeballing a borrowed S0 vs my S2, I can eyeball a thickness difference, albeit maybe just with the glass circle thing jutting out from the bottom?
In case anyone is curious why I don't care for the Apple Watch:
- I care about truly few notifications (texts).
- I expect to lift my wrist and look at the watch and see the date and time immediately, every time. The Apple Watch doesn't really do this. Sometimes it shows me an audio interface instead, which you can disable. But a lot of the time, the Watch doesn't even flip on when I turn my wrist unless I turn it a specific way and speed.
As an aside, I'm also curious why you keep buying them if you just keep returning them.
I'm not a particular smart watch fanboy but here are a few reasons:
- notifications (of which I use very few)
- GPS tracking (hiking, running, etc.). That's partly health but not really.
- Potentially do some phone-related things when your phone isn't handy.
Imagine how nice notifications (and the ability to respond if necessary) are for people who work long shifts where they can't have their phone with them!
