A US federal judge invalidated a key patent held by Omni MedSci related to non-invasive blood glucose monitoring. This ruling potentially clears a significant obstacle for companies like Apple, who are reportedly developing similar technology for devices like the Apple Watch. The invalidated patent covered a method of using light to measure glucose levels, a technique believed to be central to Apple's rumored efforts. This decision could accelerate the development and release of non-invasive blood glucose monitoring technology for consumer wearables.
This blog post explores improving type safety and reducing boilerplate when communicating between iOS apps and WatchOS complications using Swift. The author introduces two Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) built with Swift's result builders. The first DSL simplifies defining data models shared between the app and complication, automatically generating the necessary Codable conformance and WatchConnectivity transfer code. The second DSL streamlines updating complications, handling the asynchronous nature of data transfer and providing compile-time checks for supported complication families. By leveraging these DSLs, the author demonstrates a cleaner, safer, and more maintainable approach to iOS/WatchOS communication, minimizing the risk of runtime errors.
HN commenters generally praised the approach outlined in the article for its type safety and potential to reduce bugs in iOS/WatchOS communication. Some expressed concern about the verbosity of the generated code and suggested exploring alternative approaches like protobuf or gRPC, while acknowledging their added complexity. Others questioned the necessity of a DSL for this specific problem, suggesting that Swift's existing features might suffice with careful design. The potential benefits for larger teams and complex projects were also highlighted, where the enforced type safety could prevent subtle communication errors. One commenter pointed out the similarity to Apache Thrift. Several users appreciated the author's clear explanation and practical example.
The blog post argues that Vice President Kamala Harris should not wear her Apple Watch, citing security risks. It contends that smartwatches, particularly those connected to cell networks, are vulnerable to hacking and could be exploited to eavesdrop on sensitive conversations or track her location. The author emphasizes the potential for foreign intelligence agencies to target such devices, especially given the Vice President's access to classified information. While acknowledging the convenience and health-tracking benefits, the post concludes that the security risks outweigh any advantages, suggesting a traditional mechanical watch as a safer alternative.
HN users generally agree with the premise that smartwatches pose security risks, particularly for someone in Vance's position. Several commenters point out the potential for exploitation via the microphone, GPS tracking, and even seemingly innocuous features like the heart rate monitor. Some suggest Vance should switch to a dumb watch or none at all, while others recommend more secure alternatives like purpose-built government devices or even GrapheneOS-based phones paired with a dumb watch. A few discuss the broader implications of always-on listening devices and the erosion of privacy in general. Some skepticism is expressed about the likelihood of Vance actually changing his behavior based on the article.
Summary of Comments ( 24 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43124436
Hacker News commenters discuss the implications of the patent invalidation, with some skeptical about Apple's ability to deliver a reliable non-invasive blood glucose monitor soon. Several point out that regulatory hurdles remain a significant challenge, regardless of patent issues. Others note that the invalidation doesn't automatically clear the way for Apple, as other patents and technical challenges still exist. Some express hope for the technology's potential to improve diabetes management, while others highlight the difficulties of accurate non-invasive glucose monitoring. A few commenters also discuss the specifics of the patent and the legal reasoning behind its invalidation.
The Hacker News post discussing the invalidation of an Omni MedSci patent related to blood glucose monitoring for potential use in Apple Watch has generated a moderate number of comments, exploring various aspects of the situation.
Several commenters express skepticism about the actual impact of this patent invalidation on Apple's progress. They highlight the significant technical challenges inherent in non-invasive blood glucose monitoring and suggest that this specific patent likely wasn't a major roadblock for Apple. The consensus seems to be that Apple's hurdles are more related to the scientific and engineering difficulties of accurate and reliable measurement rather than legal issues.
Some users discuss the complexities of patent litigation in general and how companies often build "patent thickets" – a large portfolio of patents, some stronger than others – to protect their innovations. They suggest that this particular patent may have been relatively weak and that Omni MedSci likely has other patents related to this technology. Therefore, while this invalidation might be a small win for Apple, it's not necessarily a game-changer.
Another thread of discussion centers around the existing continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) on the market, such as Dexcom and Freestyle Libre. Commenters compare the invasiveness and accuracy of these existing solutions and speculate on how a non-invasive Apple Watch solution might compare. Some users express concerns about the accuracy and reliability required for medical devices like glucose monitors, and how regulatory approval for a non-invasive solution might be difficult to obtain.
Finally, some comments touch upon the potential benefits of such a feature in the Apple Watch, particularly for people with diabetes. They acknowledge the transformative potential of readily available, continuous glucose monitoring for managing the condition. However, they also caution against over-hyping the news and emphasize the need for rigorous testing and validation before such a technology becomes widely available.
In summary, the comments generally express cautious optimism about the potential for non-invasive blood glucose monitoring in the Apple Watch, tempered by an understanding of the technical and regulatory challenges involved. While the patent invalidation is viewed as a positive step, it is not seen as a decisive breakthrough, and the prevailing sentiment is that significant work remains before such a technology becomes a reality.