Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Tempest1981 3319 days ago
This is a PR piece, and it's very interesting. Seems like we're all in such a hurry to de-bunk it, demanding scientific details and open source. If Apple published this, would the reaction be as cynical?
3 comments

I don't have an issue with it being a PR piece, but I think it's a shame that an actual discussion of the tech is basically non-existent.

Other controversial opinion: I've seen several examples of tech projects led by women where the reporting is couched much more from the human interest angle than a tech angle, and worst, questioning the tech in question can be met with accusations of sexism. I think this does a great disservice to women in tech by assuming a less critical bar.

As for examples, Elizabeth Holmes is probably the most well known one, but another one that was kind of fascinating to me at the time was Grace Choi and her "Mink" make-up printer. The printer as advertised was basically non-existent, but articles were universally laudatory and many lambasted men who questioned the tech for "just not getting it." I'm not arguing that is going on here, but without an explanation of what's actually going on, and comparisons to other similar technologies, this is just a puff piece.

Oh come on. The Apple glucose monitor thread has one poster criticising Apple for a cynical money grab because what they should really have done is cure diabetes completely and the only reason they didn't is commercial gain. Honestly, go look. Post by Xoros. There are other cynical takes, one calls Apple's strategy 'cute', but Xoros takes the biscuit.
If Apple had published this, it'd be on the market within a few days / months.