5 thoughts on “One diabetic’s take on Google’s Smart Contact Lenses”

1. Google didn’t? Don’t we mean that Microsoft invented – same researcher had same information out for MS back in 2011.

2. Not only are diabetics advised against wearing contact lenses, there’s no data to support tear glucose level being a good proxy for blood glucose level. There will have to be years of study to see if it correlates and if so,if it tracks blood levels fast enough to be useful.
   If they had applied the same (very clever) circuitry to a skin patch that measured blood levels directly, there would be a much clearer path to a useful product.

   As it stands this is just vaporware with some hint of promise for a big problem, which makes it smack a little of just being a positive PR exercise in a week that has seen a lot of Google bashing.

3. I’m sorry but the whole thing reeks of Google buying off good PR after the Nest privacy fiasco.

   For example the BBC and many others did not quote the opinion of any actual clinical experts, but chose instead to quote a representative of market research company Frost&Sullivan, curiously also based in Mountain View…

   No wonder they say they haven’t even talked to the FDA yet.

   It’s disgusting to think that Google is now using health vaporware to buy off people’s trust, but I guess they learnt the technique from those fake pill ads they run on their network..

4. It shouldn’t even work to buy people’s trust though, should it? If people stopped and thought about it, they were worried about Google collecting data about when they’re home and whether they’ve had a fire. Now Google wants to be almost implanted in their body and collect data about basic life indicators?
   Yet somehow most of the media blindly reports this fanciful concept as a solution to a real problem.

5. Just like only 1% of cars sold will be driverless by 2025.
   and every other manufacturer has their own tech.
   But that doesn’t stop media from fawning over Google
   and Amazon.