After thinking about it, price shouldn't be a concern.
A normal smart phone cost approximately $249.99, so a device devoted to this application should theoretically cost less than $249.99. This device should also be more effective than an iPhone since their application is restricted to the phone as opposed to having a new device specifically designed for that application. The technology already exist, so you wouldn't be starting from scratch.
I'm all about having a cell phone that does multiple tasks, but some applications are for convenience, i.e. the Internet. I would never replace my pc with my cell phone. A better example is the camera capability. For many, the cell phone has replaced their cameras. Why carry two when you can carry one? At the same time, our cell phones will never replace a "real" camera. We use our cell phone cameras because of the convenience.
The same applies for this application. I would say that there would be enough people willing to drop $100-$150 for their personal STI device that is more effective and accurate than urinating on their phone. If you spent money on the iPhone, then you're willing to spend money on new technology.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Just pee into your phone
Just pee into your phoneFollow
Just the sort of forward, adaptable thinking one would expect from the Army. Congratulations.
#54Almalieque,
Posted: Nov 11 2010 at 5:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You obviously have a personal problem. This is a new thread and yet you're bringing up unrelated material from previous posts....
Almalieque wrote:
A normal smart phone cost approximately $249.99, so a device devoted to this application should theoretically cost less than $249.99. This device should also be more effective than an iPhone since their application is restricted to the phone as opposed to having a new device specifically designed for that application. The technology already exist, so you wouldn't be starting from scratch.
I'm all about having a cell phone that does multiple tasks, but some applications are for convenience, i.e. the Internet. I would never replace my pc with my cell phone. A better example is the camera capability. For many, the cell phone has replaced their cameras. Why carry two when you can carry one? At the same time, our cell phones will never replace a "real" camera. We use our cell phone cameras because of the convenience.
The same applies for this application. I would say that there would be enough people willing to drop $100-$150 for their personal STI device that is more effective and accurate than urinating on their phone. If you spent money on the iPhone, then you're willing to spend money on new technology.
I'm all about having a cell phone that does multiple tasks, but some applications are for convenience, i.e. the Internet. I would never replace my pc with my cell phone. A better example is the camera capability. For many, the cell phone has replaced their cameras. Why carry two when you can carry one? At the same time, our cell phones will never replace a "real" camera. We use our cell phone cameras because of the convenience.
The same applies for this application. I would say that there would be enough people willing to drop $100-$150 for their personal STI device that is more effective and accurate than urinating on their phone. If you spent money on the iPhone, then you're willing to spend money on new technology.
This makes wonderful sense if the only thing you ever want to do in your life is test yourself for STIs. Once you realize that you might want to do more than one thing and that combining the tools for doing all those things in some way will save you a bundle of money, you'll see that it makes more sense the other way around. If you've already paid $250 for a phone, why pay an additional $150 for an STI tester, and another $50 for blood sugar detector, and another $100 for an exercise monitor that can store biometrics, and another $50 for a first-alert monitor that can send a warning to emergency care if needed, and god knows how many other separate devices you might want or need, when you can instead pay a much smaller amount per operation by buying a smaller/simpler device that can connect with your existing phone and leverage its components for the heavy lifting?
Imagine someone with a heart condition wearing a small monitor connected via bluetooth to his phone. So if he has a heart attack, the device detects it, sends the data to the phone, which realizes the readings indicate a heart attack and automatically dials for emergency service. Now, you could run around with a separate monitor with its own brains and wi-fi/cell capability which could do the same thing, but why? You've got a phone that does that. All you really need is a simple monitoring device that can communicate with the phone. Let's assume you are a jogger and you like to track your progress. Right now, you might wear a monitor that tracks your distance, speed, heart rate, etc. But it's a separate device that maybe stores a tiny bit of data. Why not send that stuff to your phone and have it store the info so you can chart your progress over time? There are dozens of applications for this sort of thing, all of which become very very cost effective when you think of the phone as a central brain to which you can connect any number of much less expensive devices.
And that's just in the area of medical sensing devices. There are nearly limitless applications for this sort of thing.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji wrote:
This makes wonderful sense if the only thing you ever want to do in your life is test yourself for STIs. Once you realize that you might want to do more than one thing and that combining the tools for doing all those things in some way will save you a bundle of money, you'll see that it makes more sense the other way around. If you've already paid $250 for a phone, why pay an additional $150 for an STI tester,
Because you're not URINATING on your phone! That alone is worth getting another device.
Gbaji wrote:
and another $50 for blood sugar detector, and another $100 for an exercise monitor that can store biometrics, and another $50 for a first-alert monitor that can send a warning to emergency care if needed, and god knows how many other separate devices you might want or need, when you can instead pay a much smaller amount per operation by buying a smaller/simpler device that can connect with your existing phone and leverage its components for the heavy lifting?
Imagine someone with a heart condition wearing a small monitor connected via bluetooth to his phone. So if he has a heart attack, the device detects it, sends the data to the phone, which realizes the readings indicate a heart attack and automatically dials for emergency service. Now, you could run around with a separate monitor with its own brains and wi-fi/cell capability which could do the same thing, but why? You've got a phone that does that. All you really need is a simple monitoring device that can communicate with the phone. Let's assume you are a jogger and you like to track your progress. Right now, you might wear a monitor that tracks your distance, speed, heart rate, etc. But it's a separate device that maybe stores a tiny bit of data. Why not send that stuff to your phone and have it store the info so you can chart your progress over time? There are dozens of applications for this sort of thing, all of which become very very cost effective when you think of the phone as a central brain to which you can connect any number of much less expensive devices.
And that's just in the area of medical sensing devices. There are nearly limitless applications for this sort of thing.
Imagine someone with a heart condition wearing a small monitor connected via bluetooth to his phone. So if he has a heart attack, the device detects it, sends the data to the phone, which realizes the readings indicate a heart attack and automatically dials for emergency service. Now, you could run around with a separate monitor with its own brains and wi-fi/cell capability which could do the same thing, but why? You've got a phone that does that. All you really need is a simple monitoring device that can communicate with the phone. Let's assume you are a jogger and you like to track your progress. Right now, you might wear a monitor that tracks your distance, speed, heart rate, etc. But it's a separate device that maybe stores a tiny bit of data. Why not send that stuff to your phone and have it store the info so you can chart your progress over time? There are dozens of applications for this sort of thing, all of which become very very cost effective when you think of the phone as a central brain to which you can connect any number of much less expensive devices.
And that's just in the area of medical sensing devices. There are nearly limitless applications for this sort of thing.
Once again, there's nothing wrong with having a phone that does multiple things. That's kind of the whole point of having a smart phone in the first place, but there is a limit and urinating on your phone is an example of that limit.
My point is less about the efficiency of the application and more about the fact that you're urinating on your phone, because that's uh.... disgusting. Given that I'm sure there exist a number of people who love the idea but not willing to do so with their phone, it seems in this particular case (i.e. not heart, speed and distance monitors) that it would be more effective to make a separate device. Doing so would gain more money as well.
As you have written, it is more convenient to use your phone as opposed to carrying multiple devices, as I said with my camera example. At the same time, there is no denying that you are losing a noticeable audience who wouldn't want to urinate on their phone. This same type of audience is less noticeable for other devices such as cameras, gps systems and the list that you mentioned.
Technically, you;re not urinating on the phone. You **** on a chip and then stick that in your phone. I still think it's gross, but it is a very important detail.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Technically, you;re not urinating on the phone. You **** on a chip and then stick that in your phone. I still think it's gross, but it is a very important detail.
I figured that much, but you are correct, it's still disgusting. I mean, will people start doing the same for colon checks? There has to be a limit to what you want to do with your phone.
So you really think that more people would prefer to have this as a separate device rather than a part of a phone? You honestly believe that people will drop $100+ on a portable STI tester instead of going to a free clinic on occasion? And even among those who do buy the device, how many of them are going to actually carry it around with them? That must be quite the badge of honor, to have a portable STI tester fall out of your pocket at a party. Honestly, you don't have the first hint of sense, do you?
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Technically, you;re not urinating on the phone. You **** on a chip and then stick that in your phone. I still think it's gross, but it is a very important detail.
I would assume you are actually peeing into a toilet and holding a swab in the stream (at least that's how any sane person would do it). You then rub the swab onto some kind of disposable membrane attached to a small device. Then, you connect the device to your phone to get the results of the test. The point being that the mechanics of doing the test are the same, but the cost of the device itself will be cheaper because it needs fewer components than one that does all of this on its own.
Please tell me you don't actually think you pee on the phone, or anything you actually plug into the phone? I mean, that makes for a great joke and all, but that's all it is: a joke. And how do you think you'd use a device that *wasn't* connected to your phone? Unless said device comes with its own interface and display, you'd have to plug it into some kind of computing device to get the results no matter what you did. And you'd have to "pee on it" in the exact same way.
The only delta here is a choice between a device that is fully functional and standalone (which would cost a lot of money), or a device that *only* has the testing surface and sufficient memory to store the results and some kind of standard connector to allow you to upload those results to a computing device with the correct software to interpret it (like a computer or a phone). The obvious advantage of the second approach is that you leverage a device that most people will already own to save on the cost of the tester. Most people wont pay $500+ dollars for a standalone device to test themselves for STIs. They will pay $50 for one though.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Almalieque wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Just the sort of forward, adaptable thinking one would expect from the Army. Congratulations.
You obviously have a personal problem. This is a new thread and yet you're bringing up unrelated material from previous posts....
Get over it?
Hypocrite much?
Almalieque wrote:
There has to be a limit to what you want to do with your phone.
As Coupling demonstrated in one episode, there is not. Jeff: "I phoned her."
gbaji wrote:
Please tell me you don't actually think you pee on the phone, or anything you actually plug into the phone?
Quote:
urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer
The rest of your post appears to be addressing Alma, and not me, so I'll just leave that as I've not argued against any of that.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Majivo wrote:
So you really think that more people would prefer to have this as a separate device rather than a part of a phone?
Yes, once again, why would you want to urinate on your phone? Is it really that serious for you to have a "do-it-all" phone that you're willing to discrete your fluids on it as opposed to having something separate that is also more effective?
Majivo wrote:
You honestly believe that people will drop $100+ on a portable STI tester instead of going to a free clinic on occasion?
If you're willing to urinate on your phone as opposed to going to the free clinic on occasion, then yes, they will drop $100. If you only need to be checked occasionally, then why use your phone when you can go to the clinic for a free and more accurate reading? If you actually need to check yourself regularly, why not have a personal device, that's not your phone, that is more effective and accurate?
Majivo wrote:
And even among those who do buy the device, how many of them are going to actually carry it around with them? That must be quite the badge of honor, to have a portable STI tester fall out of your pocket at a party. Honestly, you don't have the first hint of sense, do you?
Really man? Why would anyone have the need to carry a STI device with them at all times? If your sex-life is so wild that you're having sex with random and questionable people at various locations at all times of the day to the point where you actually need a personal STI device with you 24/7, then a STI device falling out of your pocket should be at the bottom of your concerns. How about keeping it in your night stand or in your overnight bag in your car?
That's like saying "what if your home pregnancy test falls out of your purse at a party?" You say that I don't have the first hint of sense? lol
Edited, Nov 12th 2010 3:05pm by Almalieque
Quote:
Is it really that serious for you to have a "do-it-all" phone that you're willing to discrete your fluids on it as opposed to having something separate that is also more effective?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Almalieque wrote:
Is it really that serious for you to have a "do-it-all" phone that you're willing to discrete your fluids on it[...]?
What is discreting your fluids, and how is it accomplished?
Sneaksy fluidses... we hates them!
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer
I'd guess that the "wet" end would remain out of the phone simply on the basis that sticking wet stuff into electronics is generally a bad idea.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:
Is it really that serious for you to have a "do-it-all" phone that you're willing to discrete your fluids on it as opposed to having something separate that is also more effective?
Not really.. When I first heard this on the radio, this was a joke.
In any case, I realize the desire of Americans wanting multi-functionality, but that fails in comparison to the desire of wanting the newest thing regardless of how much of an increase it is from what is already out.
Let a new iPhone be released and see how many people will upgrade their current existing iPhone just because it's the newest and latest model. Look at the people who bought iPod touch just to listen to music. Look at the people who bought movie classics that they already had on DVD for Blue Ray.
Moe wrote:
What is discreting your fluids, and how is it accomplished?
Quote:
urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer
Almalieque wrote:
Moe wrote:
What is discreting your fluids, and how is it accomplished?
Quote:
urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer
The joke is that the word is not discrete. It is secrete.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Moe wrote:
What is discreting your fluids, and how is it accomplished?
Quote:
urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer
The joke is that the word is not discrete. It is secrete.
I actually figured that out >.> But thanks.. I just decided not to play word games and realize that he was wrong.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Moe wrote:
What is discreting your fluids, and how is it accomplished?
Quote:
urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer
The joke is that the word is not discrete. It is secrete.
Actually, in the case of the urine, the word I was going for was excrete.
Almalieque wrote:
I actually figured that out >.> But thanks.. I just decided not to play word games and realize that he was wrong.
Where, precisely, was I wrong?
Moe wrote:
Where, precisely, was I wrong?
In your attempt to explain that people who have smart phones and feel the necessity to be constantly checked for STIs would rather use their phones as opposed to a separate, more effective and more accurate device. There will be a group of people who would rather use their phones, but not large enough where a separate device wouldn't make profit, which was my initial claim.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Moe wrote:
What is discreting your fluids, and how is it accomplished?
Quote:
urine or saliva on to a computer chip about the size of a USB chip, plug it into their phone or computer
The joke is that the word is not discrete. It is secrete.
Actually, in the case of the urine, the word I was going for was excrete.
Yeah, that works better.
Almalieque wrote:
Moe wrote:
Where, precisely, was I wrong?
San d'Orian Royal Heir ThePsychoticOne wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Moe wrote:
Where, precisely, was I wrong?
This is under the assumption that the application is restricted to an already designed device. Given this, a new device can be built for the application. So, instead of focusing on various unrelated functions, i.e. a camera, the entire device would be designed for reading and analyzing results. This would allow any additional functions that weren't added due to any possible phone restrictions. If this is a false assumption, then that means the price of this device should be even less than previously mentioned.
Recent Visitors: 413
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (413)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Just pee into your phone
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC