[mrzool]

> I would be happy to pay ~$400-500 up front for hardware that integrates with Apple Health and provides solid, reliable health tracking without a need for a subscription.

That price point would make it unaffordable for the majority of the world’s population. Shouldn’t we try and make health monitoring and fitness tracking more accessible? That was one of Pebble’s biggest benefits.

[jgalt212]

True, but people who tend to prioritize personal health also tend to be richer than the average bear.

[mtlmtlmtlmtl]

Well yes, because prioritising personal health is expensive.

High quality, healthy food is much more expensive per calorie than hyperprocessed, high calorie/low micronutrient, carcinogenic food. Gym memberships are pretty expensive, even without any of the personal coach and flex location fluff. And for someone with a lower paying job, time is more scarce as well, in addition to the job itself likely being more harmful to health. And of course, health care is expensive, and even if you live somewhere with socialised medicine, access to specialists is a lot easier and more expedient if you can afford to pay extra.

It's not like poor people don't care about their health, they just have fewer options and less time to spend on it. I support anything that can bring more options to more people.

[jgalt212]

> High quality, healthy food is much more expensive per calorie than hyperprocessed, high calorie/low micronutrient, carcinogenic food.

Largely true, but frozen vegetables are inexpensive. And they are healthier than fresh vegetables. Veggies are the key to good health for the poor.

[hooli_gan]

> And they are healthier than fresh vegetables.

Citation needed

[jgalt212]

from SERP page 1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/4060/

[dancc]

It sounds difficult to make a definitive statement based on the findings of the referenced paper:

"Overall, the vitamin content of the frozen commodities was comparable to and occasionally higher than that of their fresh counterparts. β-Carotene, however, was found to decrease drastically in some commodities."

It was occasionally lower, too.

[veidr]

Yes, citation needed (and also probably unlikely to be forthcoming or validated) but the rest of the comment stands, so let's just ignore this weakest/most-dubious claim.

[orzig]

You have to start somewhere, and then economies of scale can work their magic. The most inspiring example in the last 30 years is probably photovoltaic solar panels.

[toss1]

Of course, lower cost is almost always better.

But just because advanced devices with (currently) costly components have higher costs is no reason to not create them.

If something works and meets a need, the costs of components and manufacture usually come down as engineering and manufacturing progresses on the learning curve and competition comes into play. (Not true when there is a captured market where extractive pricing becomes the norm, but those are the exception in consumer goods)