Hacker News Reader

Comment by atmosx | Hacker News Reader

> Also in that non-invasive glucose monitoring has had a considerable research effort behind it, it is suprising that the 'solution' would come without lots of press coverage of the science, let alone the product.

I've been talking with a Gerontologist doctor who has been actively monitoring patients with diabetes in my town. She is an incredibly up-to-date doctor. She told me that any kind of therapy or approach that doesn't bring $$$ back to the pharmaceutical companies (involving long term treatment with supplies) is immediately abandoned. Research from major players is money-driven and nothing more. She mentioned a couple of cases which I can't recall.

I have high hopes for this project and for Google's Contact Lens[1]. Let's hope it flies...

[1] http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=12300CTY4...

View on HN

any kind of therapy or approach that doesn't bring $$$ back to the pharmaceutical companies (involving long term treatment with supplies) is immediately abandoned

So... you're saying that they spend millions of dollars on clinical trials, and then they abandon these products? Because there have been plenty of trials for non-invasive glucose meters -- unfortunately, they all fail horribly at producing consistently accurate readings.

Yes, but generally speaking what I'm really saying is: Technologies like the one in question, that can increase the life quality of a large part of the population have a better chance of being developed by minor companies, group of individuals (as in this case) or outsiders (Google, Apple, etc.) rather than a Pharmaceutical company that has an already well established product in the market with a positive revenue stream.

>> Because there have been plenty of trials for non-invasive glucose meters

And maybe this GoBe device IS an inconsistently accurate glucose meter?

What you're saying is this device already exists, but is not good enough for diabetes. But could it be good enough for dieting?

A person without diabetes should not be experiencing large excursions in blood glucose, so presumably this device should not be helpful for non-diabetic dieters.

It could have many uses. I'd like to know my exact insulin spike when I drink a coke for example. If insulin spike[1] can be correlated to glucose levels in the blood (which is theoretically possible) then trying to minimize the spike gives you a better chances of never getting diabetes :-)

[1] http://www.masterthyself.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Roll...

Isn't that the whole theory behind Atkins and the low carb movement? Some dieters want to minimize their blood sugar spikes. But don't want to prick their finger to test that.

Anyways, I am thinking that these guys WILL deliver a device, but it won't be the miracle in technology everyone is expecting.

Just because something doesn't have the recurring razor blade model of revnue (as glucose meters currently do), doesn't mean a company won't make money off of them. Now they give you the meter, but I get charged about $0.25/test strip, so about $180 of revenue/year.

I would easily part with $1000 for a watch or anklet like accessory that would measure my glucose without it being possible for me to forget about it. And I'm not even the best target market for it, because my sugar has never gone low. I had a coworker with a child with type I diabetes and they had to test her sugar somewhere around 10x a day. I'm sure a lot of parents would part with even more money than I would to avoid having to prick their child 10x a day.

Edited to add: Actually, there are likely to be sophisticated electronics anyway, enough to have a timer. The only reason I can think of not to have a subscription based model (i.e. it will work for 1 year for $250) is that it might turn off more potential customers and overall revenue could be reduced.

There's an article in the New York Times today that covers diabetes management technology and the large recurring costs of diabetes supplies

http://nyti.ms/PxdJNO

As others have said, non invasive monitoring is the holy grail and huge amounts of money are looking for a non invasive solution. But innovation here is likely to come from a start up that doesn't have the existing recurrent revenue model to be disrupted

But it's really hard. I think the chances of this particular one being a scam are pretty high

I really don't see why people are downvoting this comment. You may disagree with the poster's opinion but it is not posted in any way that is deserving of downvotes. Personally I agree that big pharma is much more interested in long recurring solutions to a problem then any one time permanent fix.

Well, any patentable solution would bring billions back to the company. Of course, there is always the innovator's dilemma...

I don't think innovators have any dilemma. Most scientist would rather go for fame than money, or at least that's the feeling I get from the ones I know in person.

It's more like the "manager's dilemma".

He's talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator's_Dilemma

Christensen suggests that successful companies can put too much emphasis on customers' current needs, and fail to adopt new technology or business models that will meet customers' unstated or future needs; he argues that such companies will eventually fall behind

Oh, thanks for clarifying!!!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com