I don't think that Apple's stuff is better - I think that Samsung has better hardware at the moment. But in software, having the best of something doesn't necessarily make you a winner where it counts.
Everyone but Apple came out with products in 2014 because of the rumor that Apple would come out with something. They have an integrated software platform to consolidate health information but no real products of their own. They will start with the watch in 2015 as their own device.
Look at what is happening with Apple Pay. Google came out with a solution several years ago but it was clunky and they didn't do the work on getting businesses to support their solution. Apple Pay comes along and they have done the work with the banks to get their solution supported and it's a fairly elegant solution. Android users get the benefit from this too though they still have a clunky solution.
The sheer volume of Apple customers and their ability to work with other businesses also worked with the iPod in getting the music labels to allow them to sell electronic music.
> I still marvel at how basic and even bad the heart rate sensor
> and simplistic monitoring in my allegedly fancy recumbant
> bicycle is:) It has no WiFi, it downloads data to USB and it is
> not much more than a calculator.
I have a Garmin Forerunner 610 which uploads my running data to a website where you can do considerable analysis. The upload is done via an ANT stick in a USB port and it's wireless. This is a previous generation product and the current generation product supports upload via WiFi, or Smartphone. I think that you can update via Bluetooth on PC as well but I haven't verified that.
These models use a chest strap for getting your heart rate information. The newer generation chest strap also has accelerometers and can recommend gait and stride adjustments. I see a ton of people using the Garmin watches in races (as I do) and assume that this is the best solution out there. The watch is big and heavy and only had 6-8 hours of battery life and the latest generation model costs $450. That's apparently the state-of-the-art for running right now.
I do not see how a general-purpose wearable can beat a dedicated device, particularly one with a strong enthusiast customer base.
> The area I think Intel can succeed is via sensors, tying that
> into the greater medical infrastructure. And to be fair, that
> is a ways away so we won't know the end game there for another
> 5 to 10 years. I don't see wireless heart rate ear buds as a
> terribly profitable deal for anyone so maybe I just missed the
> direction you were thinking.
Brighams and Womens in Boston has one of the most advanced cardiac units in the world. The typical hospital room is like an ICU room as far as technology goes. I'm sure that Intel is already in several devices in those kinds of room. They also have a few rooms with even higher levels of care and technology but I didn't get to see one of those (fortunately). This seems like an area that Intel would already have, at least in terms of PCs and servers.
