- you are in a terrible accident
- there is no one around you to call an ambulance
- you can’t call an ambulance yourself, because you are knocked out or can’t move
I think the odds for such an event are rather low. If you like smart watches, sure, go ahead and buy one. But for everybody who just wants to wear it because they are afraid: I don’t think it’s necessary for most people, unless you ride around alone in remote areas and are inexperienced or whatever.
My point is: don’t buy because of fear if your risk profile is super incredibly low.
Increasingly large odds after a certain age, and not small if you do certain sports (e.g. trekking, climbing, etc) regardless of age.
In fact, older people falling accidents is so common, a proverb in a European country says: "The elderly die either from falling or while shitting" -- the original is funnier than the translation, because the two causes rhyme).
The accident doesn't have to be terrible either. Tons of run of the mill accidents leave people unconscious...
But you don't read about such cases as such.
E.g. an elder person who fell either they eventually get up in time and call for help (so you don't read any story), or they don't, and the story is "person found dead in their apartment" etc, and might or might not mention the fall...
Is it as necessary as a spare tire in your car or a fire extinguisher in your home? No. But (since the device it does other stuff too) not bad to have regardless.
Note: For certain categories, this is so needed, that there are expensive special purpose devices that are popular for certain cases (e.g. elderly with dementia, parkison, bad backs, and so on), e.g.: https://www.medicalalertadvice.com/fall-detection/
But this is a multi-purpose device, and a cool one at that, plus it has a phone attached and can call the 911 itself, and gives this ability as just another feature to everyone!
Indeed. My friend's grandma slipped while getting in the bathtub. They found her barely alive 3 days later when she missed her hair appointment and the stylist called her son. Previously, she was the life of the party and went to the gym almost every day. She didn't last a few days after that fall broke her hip. The outcome may have been different if she got help right away and if nothing else, she wouldn't have suffered for a few days. She was in such good physical health that nobody expected something like this to happen.
That said, having an Apple watch is certainly much cooler than wearing those emergency call devices they currently sell for old people.
That's a problem, but I don't think that's the main takeaway from this story.
You could have a loving family and friends and still not be "missed for 3 days". 3 days are not big enough span of time for adults, in the grand scheme of things. E.g. if your wife is on vacation, or you/she work in another city, or have some deal going on, and you talk 1-2 times a week, it's easy for 2-3 days to slip by without anybody noticing you. Friends too might come by once a week or 1-2 times a month, and easily miss you for 3 days (that would already be more often than many people with close friends see them).
Heck, and even 1 day or even 2-3 hours would be enough for serious damage, if you weren't discovered after a fall/accident.
This is the coldest of cold takes.
A person falls, and nobody misses her or looks after her for three days. How is this not a problem of our current society?
If I died today, the only place that could figure it in a day or so out would be my workplace. If I didn't work, then it could be a week before my parents or friends began to suspect something.
You're not wrong, but it's also not unusual. Most people I know do not talk to their mom more than once every 3 days.
Having personally been run over cycling, multiple passersby called 911 for me immediately, and I was in a ambulance in less than 10min.
Don't know about the US, but in several mountains I've been on around the world (not in developing countries though), signal was just fine. It might not work for Everest, or the remotest part of the Rockies, but most hikings/treks are not in such places...
It's an addition safety factor.
Yes! Falls by the elderly are a huge issue and there have been major product lines that focus on it. Many will probably remember the 80s/90s commercials about "I've fallen and I can't get up!"
If you're serious about hiking/climbing you should never be in a position where you would need an apple watch to save you. You should always let people know where you are going, what you are planning to do, and when you plan to be back or at least back in contact otherwise they should call a rescue team. If you're solo climbing and your apple watch is what you're relying on in case of emergency you probably have far bigger issues to worry about
That being said, it does seem like it could be useful for the elderly in some scenarios
On the other hand, I don't see that there is any appreciable fall risk from hiking. It's the scramblers that get hurt, not those of us who stick to trails.
Anyway, you're thinking of an avalanche beacon. Those are to help others you are with find you quickly if you're buried in the snow, they have no GPS capability.
Edit just realized I know of several other instances where an Apple Watch would have saved someone or kept them for have a days torture with broken legs in their back yard while living alone. Surely this is morning common than you make out?
There should be a law forcing them to wear bicycle helmets for their own good.
And I guess you are writing just to the young users. There are a lot of old people living alone (in the part of the world where such watches are affordable). Falling, even in their own house, then remaining immobile and unable to call for help is a common cause of huge problems (1) (2).
The specialized devices already exist too, but a lot of people don't carry them, until they already suffer such event and also have luck to survive. Such people (who would otherwise not survive) get potentially (if the system do engage and what follows can be influenced) a huge benefit in a watch that has such functionality.
1) https://www.medicalalertadvice.com/fall-detection/ also:
"With the monthly costs nearly twice that of a traditional medical alert monitoring system, the cost alone may be the deciding factor. Is the extra costs worth it? Only you can make that decision. Keep in mind, these emergency alert systems cannot detect 100% of all falls."
2) Also see the exponential increase of chances to die with age:
That's been a solved problem for years though. As your link points out, LifeAlert bracelets (and similar technologies) have had fall detection for quite some time now. The new thing that Apple (and Garmin) have brought to the table is pairing that will a cell radio.
Given the other benefits of a LifeAlert bracelet (or pendant), I'm not sure the Apple Watch is a major improvement (especially for someone with failing eyesight).
Loves the Apple Watch I bought him as a gift though.
And this is the best aspect of the systems that aren’t explicitly “for sick and old.”
We have recently a case of a coworker (middle-age man) falling in his house while wife and kids were away and stayed there for hours until somehow reached his phone with a broken back.
- smart watch correctly detects a crash
This doesn’t seem like a very difficult problem to solve for the vast majority of crashes.
At least around here cell reception != humans within earshot at all.
That said, this is a great feature for many people. I could see it being very beneficial to hunters, elderly people, and people who run in the woods.
Think of it in terms of a risk assessment. If you are engaging in an activity, you should look at the probability of injury and then the consequences if that occurs.
For example, I'm going mountain biking by myself. The area I'm riding in has a loose surface, but no extreme hills or other features. So it's somewhat likely I'll fall, but the consequence of that won't be extreme. Conversely, I'm riding in a hilly area with a rough but grippy surface. Relatively, the probability of a fall may be lower, but the consequence could be much higher.
Using this type of not-exactly-quantitative reasoning, depending on what you are doing (and the consequences of something going wrong), it may be very reasonable to buy a smart watch or something similar just for this purpose.
A not exactly good article on risk matrix use. Also search for
"5x5 risk matrix" (NASA probably has a good reference). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_matrix
9to5Mac has links to various fall detection stories at the bottom of this post
I’m still mad, 10 years later, about the fact that he has 2 amazing grandkids who won’t get to know him, or that I can’t ask him about the state of the world.
I don’t know if the Apple Watch would have helped him, but I do know that you haven’t done a full risk assessment. He wasn’t in an isolated area, he wasn’t inexperienced. Falls get scarier and scarier the older your loved ones get.
My mother's father, while still alive, rapidly deteriorated mentally and was in two accidents by himself in somewhat remote areas and also went to drive to the VA 15 minutes away and ended up several hours away lost and confused when state police came upon him.
My half-brother was driving a box truck for work when it went off road (ice) and into a very steep ditch, the truck was not visible from the road and was unconscious for some amount of time, fortunately this was still in flip phone days so his phone was in his pants pocket and within reach. Even on the phone with 911 he said he saw the emergency vehicles pass him (via their lights) while he was on the phone with 911.
2 or 3 years ago, the brother of the girl that was killed in the hit and run, hit a patch of ice on an on or off ramp and rolled his car multiple times down the hill with his pregnant girlfriend in the car, with the car landing on it's roof. Fortunately it happened during day and there were people there that witnessed it and while quite confused/disoriented they both remained conscious, had that happened at night such a device could have summoned help.
I'm one person and these are just the instances I know of where such a technology could have been useful.
A lot of people on HN live in big cities, ride bicycles or public transportation to work, are rarely if ever out of sight of multiple human beings. That's not always the case. Technology like this is great, and the more awareness it gets the more it will be adopted, the more it is adopted the more lives it can potentially save and the more data it can provide on how to refined.
What if someone is home alone and falls down the stairs? Has a heart attack? Is cleaning gutters and falls? My father's father was cleaning his windows, fell and hit his head on the driveway but his wife heard the ladder fall with him and was able to call 911, but what if that was a widower at 2pm on a weekday and he just had to lay there until someone happened to drive by, what if he was in the back yard and had a privacy fence?
The late Grant Thompson crashed his aircraft this summer (I believe they said died on impact) and was able to be located by comparable technology and by knowing where he'd be flying. Had he not died on impact, something like this could have saved his life or had he not told everyone where he was going and when he expected to return this could have given a location to go search (assuming he had signal) and led to a quick recovery of his body.
Edit: and actually, this may have saved my own life if I'd had the technology and it had triggered from a fall from bed. Some years ago I had a hypokalemic event where I was effectively paralyzed, with great effort I managed to get to the edge of the bed and proceeded to fall out of bed like a sack of bricks onto the floor, barely able to move my hands with minimal manual dexterity and poor coordination, fortunately my mother was already living with me due to her health but I still laid there on the floor, with only a bathroom between our rooms, yelling for help for probably 5 minutes. That was a pretty interesting experience, I've written about it here -> https://www.ryanmercer.com/ryansthoughts/2013/2/19/flashback...
Now I wonder if you can go "hey Google, call 911" to a Google home.
Unfortunately not. It would be a nice feature to have.
I used to have an Apple Watch, and now have a Garmin that has similar features. Nice to know they're there, but I wouldn't buy the device just for it.
That said, if I had been the son in the story, yeah, i probably would have run out and bought my own the very next day! The power of a personal connection to a story.
So yes, it happens.
In which case you will probably not have a cellphone connection anyway.
I have great cell coverage there.
So yes the chance of incident is low, but the cost of the incident is at a maximum (you can die).
Even if this situation coincidentally has happened recently, the subtle message is still here: "you can rely on Apple Watch and you should buy one - better safe than sorry"
That hardly ever stopped news outlets from doing so. In fact, in some places everybody (every outlet) does it, even though it's against the law. Of course depends on the country and how exhaustive enforcement is (and if they can just get out of it with a slap on the wrist/small fine, in the eventually they're discovered).
That said, I don't think this is the case here. A device saving someone's life simply makes for a good story (technology, human interest, feel good result, and Apple to boot, clicks all the "people will be interested" boxes), and there are stories written for a lot less ("see this curious grumpy cat" or whatever passes for new). And such a story, if written, couldn't have but a positive spin (a person's life was saved after all).
From the moment the story actually happened, it was inevitable that outlets would report it, and with a positive message for said technology.
I don't understand the complaints about this being an ad at all. Okay, so maybe it's an ad. Is it conveying useful information? I didn't know Apple Watch's were capable of doing this. Ads are just another way of conveying information - often that information is useless. But in this case? No, it's not useless information. It's important and valuable to many people. The alternative is that there's no ads and nobody finds out about this feature, and they lose out on the opportunity to decide whether this feature (and others) warrant a purchase. It also sparks conversation about possible alternatives (and no, the devices for seniors aren't an alternative for many people), or where alternatives fall short.
The Apple Watch is very explicit about not being a panacea, and currently only advertises detection of a specific kind of arythmia or elevated heart rate. Note that the original comment mentioned that fall detection was probably the trigger.
I'm still pretty angry at the universe about my colleague's sudden death. I just want to temper expectations about what the Watch can or cannot do.
Unless he had this sense multiple times and was finally right this time...
Thinking of deaths of people I've known; dying at home in bed seems preferable to most.
"Being Mortal" by Atul Gawande is an excellent book on this subject.
What does this mean?
Through this doesn't mean the Apple watch can't be a useful addition, just don't rely on it.
Except, when you wear additional bracelets at your both legs, the other hand, both shoulders and another 6 on your chest. Then yes ;). And consider the continuous cyborgization of our society, that is not that far away.
The 12 lead ECG is about detecting the electrical impulses
of heart beats from different angles of your bodies.
If you found a technology to detect these mV values from a meter away ... tell me ;) We will be rich ;)
There's a reason ECG probes are attached to multiple points on the body, and you can infer quite a bit of info from just comparing multiple signals alone, including if you have your heart flipped, for some reason. :D You'll not get that from your watch.
They call this an electrocardiogram (ECG) but the one I had for a medical didn't have 12 leads just 5 or 7 I think.
Please vaccinate yourselves and loved ones even for the flu.
I would also highly recommend people go through this app  to get some familiarity with CPR. Then take a proper CPR course (I need to take my own advice on doing a proper course, actually).
So don't expect miracles where none are currently possible. Do all you can obviously in case of need, and ideally make yourself familiar with procedures a bit, any delay will worsen the chances.
According to their material, the 30-day survival rate in Denmark has gone from 3.8% (2001) to 10.4% in 2016, with 67.5% bystander assistance: https://hjertestarter.dk/english/you-can-save-lives though it's not clear how much the programme itself can claim.
According to various papers, rapid CPR/AED after a heart attack can triple survival rates.
It's still pretty bleak outcome, but better than e.g. in 2002 Detroit, where 1 out of 471 out of hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) survived to hospital discharge. In USA, all those stats are apparently being tracked by a programmed called CARES.
I have yet to see one that's properly locked up [that didn't have easy to break emergency glass, anyway]. My workplace has a few in special AED boxes, but those have the emergency glass and the hammer.
Fortunately, it costs about the same! but still...
If I had to guess I would estimate a prayer to be as effective as a placebo, but to proclaim that as fact seems a bit unscientific.
No affects have been found.
> In 1872, the Victorian scientist Francis Galton made the first statistical analysis of third-party prayer. He hypothesized, partly as satire, that if prayer were effective, members of the British Royal Family would live longer than average, given that thousands prayed for their well-being every Sunday, and he prayed over randomized plots of land to see whether the plants would grow any faster, and found no correlation in either case.
there's been a number of studies showing lots of effects. Most studies seem to show slight positive effects from prayer, some show none and some show negative effects.
> Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect.
I'm an atheist so I take the "no effect" over the "small effect".
I take what I consider to be the simplest explanation in the absence of a credible alternative, that prayer does nothing when the recipient is unaware of it.
I take that view because I've never heard an alternative explaination that didn't appear to break the second law of thermodynamics.
A magical, invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent "all known laws of nature defying"-being that answers prayers, requires significantly more evidence than a small effect in some meta study.
A more properly scientific line of reasoning would be to instead say that you'll assume the small-to-nonexistent effect is nonexistent until somebody produces a model capable of predicting the proposed small effect, or a myriad other arguments along the same general lines.
Couldn't find the prayer stats.
I doubt there are any. It seems like a study fraught with problems, to put it mildly.
The longer I was there, the more the discussion became "Our child is facing X surgery. Have you or your child had this surgery? Pros? Cons? Any good tips?"
Prayer very often means "It's hopeless. Humans can't fix this. Our only hope is divine intervention." And it's hugely depressing and disempowering.
Modern feelings of hopelessness and nihilism extremely common in the western world, many people are dealing with these feelings through medication. The effectiveness of regular prayer on mental health is surprising according to studies and demographic data.
Let me rephrase that: When the people around you offer nothing but prayers, it's often because they don't believe there is any practical support they are capable of offering. In a group setting, if everyone offers you prayers and zero practical support, the signal it sends is pretty depressing.
To be clear, this was a support group for a deadly genetic disorder that frequently kills children before they reach adulthood. It is classified as a dread disease for a reason. The psychological effect of the diagnosis is huge.
It's practically a sign on the wall a la "All those who enter herein are damned." kind of thing.
The Apple Watch told him his heart isn't working right - automatically calling emergency services - and he also called his wife to let him know the watch says there is an emergency with his heart?
Or was it that he too passed out, the Apple Watch called emergency services, who resuscitated him enabling him to call his wife?
The watch will call emergency services, then it will text your emergency contact(s) and let them know you've experienced a hard fall. I don't know exactly how, in this instance, that was then converted to a voice call.
Edit: I see in another comment that he initiated a call himself because he was conscious enough to do so.
> Apple Watch cannot detect heart attacks. If you ever experience chest pain, pressure, tightness, or what you think is a heart attack, call emergency services immediately.
Development of a 12-Lead ECG Signal Processing Algorithm Using NI LabVIEW® and NI ELVIS: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8574627
You would most likely need a 12 lead ECG/EKG too, to detect it accurately.
Outside possibility is he felt bad, saw a heart rhythm notification, and manually triggered emergency sos by holding the power button. But a fall alert seems much more likely.
Aside: as others note, though, you can't really detect heart attacks well from something this simple.
That being said of course they will state that the watch can’t detect accurately hearth attack to avoid any liability.
Here's a post from 2006 for example, talking about accessibility in Mac OS 9: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/724948.
Here's about accessibility in Mac OS X Tiger (2005): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Tiger#Accessibility.
Thanks to strong leadership in the accessibility team, there was an increasing buy-in from the top, and throughout the company. Today, accessibility is indeed in Apple’s DNA, but initially, there was quite a bit of genetic engineering and (dare I say it?) government regulation involved.
It was evidence to elucidate upon a baseless statement you made earlier.
It's easy to criticize a company their size, but they definitely do this very very right.
She has a hard time getting up from the floor if she kneels or sits down as is, one good fall from a cat tripping her or something is likely to be devastating.
(I would be very surprised if the series 3 and 4 have significantly different accelerometer hardware)
For battery life concerns, I can see them implementing some of the fall detection logic in hardware as well. For example, a high shock or shaking could trigger the fall-detection software to wake. Although, with the 60-second period, they probably wake the main processor often enough anyway that hardware detection might not save much power.
Maybe because they added new hardware to enable it...?
One of my friends was recently killed in a motorcycle crash. A passerby found them in the morning in some bushes near the side of the road. We don't know what time the crash occurred, or even if they died right away. This feature may have saved them.
The FR945 that was released this year has far more features than the apple watch (including the emergency features). Even comparing the Apple Watch 4 to my FR935 (released in 2017), the Apple watch would be a huge step down for my purposes. That's all without mentioning the fact that I'd probably break the apple watch on my first outing.
The Apple watch might be a better smart watch for day-to-day use, but next to a Garmin it's pretty obvious which is the toy.
I get a yearly physical just to be safe, but honestly running is my favorite way to decompress and I'd need some kind of diagnosis before giving it up.
I'd venture to say they live far longer.
From the introduction of Vina & al 2016:
In longitudinal studies, physically active men and women have an approximately 30% lower risk of death compared with inactive people (Schnohr et al. 2015). No upper threshold for physical activity has ever been recommended (Pate et al. 1995). In fact, in studies performed on top‐level athletes, participation in endurance competitive sports increases life expectancy (Hartley & Llewellyn, 1939; Prout, 1972). Moreover, Karvonen and co‐workers found that Finnish champion skiers lived 2.8–4.3 years longer than the general male population in Finland (Karvonen et al. 1974). We tested the effect of strenuous exercise, performed by well‐trained humans, on their longevity. We measured average and maximal lifespan in cyclists who had taken part in the Tour de France between the years 1932 and 1964 and compared them with those of the average population in those years. Only cyclists born in Belgium, France and Italy were included in our study. The results were striking: we found an 11% increase in average longevity in Tour de France participants when compared with the general population (Sanchis‐Gomar et al. 2011). These results have been confirmed recently with the observation of a significant 41% lower mortality rate among French elite cyclists from the Tour de France, compared with the general male population (Marijon et al. 2013). Evidence from human studies supports the notion that regular, vigorous aerobic exercise might be a useful tool, with a dose–response effect, to improve the overall health status and longevity of the general population (Ruiz et al. 2010; Teramoto & Bungum, 2010). However, the controversy regarding the potential adverse effects of regular strenuous physical exercise continues (Benito et al. 2011; Schnohr et al. 2013). Schnohr and co‐workers have found that moderate‐intensity joggers have lower mortality rates that sedentary people or high intensity joggers. In other words the relationship between intensity of jogging and mortality follows a U‐shaped curve (Schnohr et al. 2015). Thus, the ideal ‘dose’ of exercise needed to improve longevity is not a simple linear relationship. Genetic aspects as well as lifestyle factors (smoking, diet and alcohol consumption) may be important in interpreting studies aimed at determining the effect of exercise training on longevity.
I also suspect lifting weights (and a bunch of other things) is important for long term health, how does that relate?
The AW might be a huge step down for your purposes, but I was fine recording 5+ hour bike rides and my 4+ hour (yeah, yeah) first marathon. I really disliked using a touch screen on the AW for recording runs, particularly intervals. I love the feature set of the 945 and haven't looked back.
THAT SAID, I would trust the Apple Watch over the Garmin any day of the week for 'lifesaving' type tech. Garmin's software is spotty, to say the least. First off, I can trigger the Garmin crash detection at will by jolting to a sudden stop on my bike and hopping off. Not all that aggressively -- it happens in my normal dismount process with some regularity. I have to tell it to cancel the emergency call.
Right now it's setup to text my wife. Looking at the config, it says "Select up to 3 people to be notified via text message and email if an incident occurs or assistance is needed". I don't know how I could set it up to call 911 if I wanted to.
And that would all assume it even works. Multiple times a week, my watch says it doesn't have connection with my iPhone X, and I have to reboot the watch for it to find my phone again. My wife's FR235+iPhone 7 setup seems more reliable, but at least once a month for the past 3-4 years, it's decided to stop syncing and we need to reboot the watch again.
IME, the Apple Watch <-> iPhone BT connection just works. All the time.
Not a fan of apple, but this is some cool tech.
Edit: Saw that some garmin's have crash detection too. Neither are "just" toys.
I had the Apple Watch track me during my hour long bike tours, GPS and heart rate sensor on and all, without any problems and with battery left to spare at the end of the day.
Seven to eight hours is probably the critical mark, but anything below that is no problem at all.
I have a Garmin Fenix 5X and it does not make the Apple Watch look like a toy. The Apple Watch integration is seamless, the Garmin Connect integration is a joke.
Moreover the Fenix has a clunky user interface, and is bulky and ugly.
The Apple Watch absolutely trounces the Garmin in every aspect, functional and aesthetic, except for two:
1) Water resistance: it's hard to argue with the Garmin's 100M water resistance.
2) Battery life, but it only does better here by being massive (ref. previous comment about bulkiness).
Seriously, unless you're spending a lot of time in the water, and if you're able to put the watch on charge every night, buy the Apple.
If you're not a cyclist then it doesn't matter but there's definitely lots of stuff the Garmin can do that the Apple Watch can't.
I have 8.5 inch wrists, and even though that's relatively chunky, the Garmin looks absolutely ridiculous.
The thing about fitness and sleep tracking is it's only useful if you're wearing the device pretty much all the time, particularly for things like daily calorie burn.
Whereas I found that there are so many contexts where it either wasn't appropriate, or I didn't want to, wear a gigantic activity watch. I slugged it out for a few months, but in the end gave up on it because it wasn't really practical or stylish.
The maps are something of a wash as well, because the screen is so tiny.
My other arguments stand, to the point where I wouldn't even recommend buying one of the smaller ones unless you really need the water resistance. I imagine even the smaller models still have better battery life than the Apple Watch, so that's another consideration.
This is not the case with the Apple Watch - your Health data lives and dies on your phone unless you back it up or choose to share it with other apps.
I believe most people, if given a discrete choice, would sacrifice 2% of battery life and "forgot your password?" features for the privacy of such information.
The new Fenix 6 series is awesome, but they're a little bulky for my wrist.
Just checked them out and my jaw dropped when I saw the +600 Euro price-tag.
Since I'm not made of money, I hope some core tech from those quickly trickles down to some cheaper sports trackers from Xiaomi for example.
If you just want a smart watch for training then a Forerunner 235 would work fine.
Though even as someone who spends 40+ days/year in the backcountry skiing around the PNW, the 645m is plenty for me. That, combined with an inReach Mini incase shit hits the fan and I feel pretty well covered.
As a side note, those bindings are incredible. Easily one of the biggest innovation in skiing since shaped skis. I put 30 days on mine last season and didn't have a single issue; really impressive for a lightweight, finicky, and brand-new piece of gear.
It's £105 delivered from amazon in the UK. I expect a similar price in your country https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CRPSJJX/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_...
During that time I never had any kind of crash or even a particularly close call. Two years ago I decided I didn't want to push my luck any further and sold my bike. Drivers are so distracted now that I feel my luck was going to run out soon.
I would be more than happy to buy the cell enabled versions for my parents considering what the watches can do but neither is keen on using a smart phone let alone the associated costs of buying and maintaining one
We are still waiting for ECG here in Australia. Sigh.
> "If Apple claims the ECG function in its Apple Watch has therapeutic benefit for wearers, the watch would need to be included in the [Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods] in order to be legally supplied in Australia," a TGA spokesperson said to Gizmodo Australia in a statement.
This could be fixed if Australia allowed unapproved devices to be sold with a warning instead of outright banning them.