[_shane]

The fact that it's a smartphone, or that it's running Windows 7, or that it was developed in Silverlight doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that we're looking at a glorified microscope.

Surely there's a cheaper way to get a microscopic image of a blood sample in Africa than flooding villages with Windows smartphones.

[shaggyfrog]

If this "glorified microscope" allows people to do their jobs tangibly better -- in this case, detect malaria -- then what exactly is the cost problem in your mind? We're not talking about gold-plated custom-designed malaria detection devices... we're talking about (commodity) smartphones with a small lens affixed and some software installed.

[jarrett]

Do we know that it helps people do their jobs better? The article left me with this question: Is this different than other microscopes that you could use in the field, and if so, how? Does this make it easier/cheaper for the trained personnel to detect malaria? Maybe it does--I'm just not clear on that point after having read the article.

[nasht]

The real point is that now the mobile worker doesn't have to carry a phone + a large microscope. The mobile phone is continuing to replace more and more objects. Radio, tv, camerea, video, internet browser, and now microscope. Many more devices will be adapted to take advantage of the phones computation capability as well as things like GPS, internet etc. BTW, if that mobile health worker has to make a choice between purchasing a microscope and purchasing a phone, they are probably going to purchase the phone.

[kenjackson]

It can also computationallly determine if there is malaria in the blood, per the article.