Just pee into your phoneFollow

Skimming through the thread again, the only one arguing that a seperate device would be cheaper is you. Plus if this device makes use of an app on your smartphone to do most of the work the only thing the device will need is the reactionary component and a cable that can plug into your phone (mini USB most likely) so a low cost is reasonable.
Assuming the $1,50 is accurate you'd need a lot of STI test before a seperate device would be cheaper, not to mention that you'd probably still need the disposable part for a seperate device so it's pretty stupid to do that.

So basically your pee on phone argument is based on very little and I doubt that it'll be much of an issue.
Your "people can go to the doctor" argument is missing one key aspect: a lot of people, especially young adults, do not want to go to the doctor for an STI test because it is kind of embarrasing so a cheap DIY test will be a great solution for them.

I would assume (and blindly given I have no actually knowledge at all in these fields) that some tests would have to be done through urine, while others could be done through saliva, so hopefully people remember to lick first, pee second.

Surely understand the difference between cleaning oneself vs integrating unnecessary everyday objects with bodily waste?



Your inability to read or comprehend doesn't substantiate your claim. That particular statement wasn't that a separate device would be cheaper, but over the cost effectiveness of a disposable feature. This is a huge difference as that feature can be both on the phone or a separate device.

It was argued at first that it would be less cost effective to have a disposable feature and more cost effective to have a reusable chip that you could plug into your phone or computer.

Later, to combat the "urine contact" argument, people started saying that everything was disposable and it would be more cost effective to have disposable pieces as opposed to buying a new device.

The major flaw, aside from the contradiction, is the assumption that only the cell phone can have a reusable function and not a separate device.

To save you time searching for the quotes...

Gbaji wrote:

Not really. Presumably, such a test device wont work for repeated uses (or will have some limited number of uses). Thus, the reactive component (the part that interacts with the pee chemically and generates readable results) would ideally need to be something cheap and replaceable. You'd want the part that reads that data and calculates results separate. Now, you could make a separate device for that part, or you could design the disposable part to be something you can just plug into an existing device (like a phone) and then run a software app to read results. That's vastly more cost effective since most people already have a phone capable of running the app and most also have some form of input port which can be connected to.

As stated, this application is really only worth the effort if you're the type of person who believes that you should be checked often. Given that, as there do exist some who do, those people will make the difference in the long run. What ever they don't make up, will be made up in any additional features that may only be on that device and not on the phone.



False, you're only making that up to support your point. The whole point of having a separate device is that you can design it to the application. By doing so, you can have it where there wouldn't be a need to buy any disposable pieces.



My entire argument was that people would buy it as a separate device which would generate more money and no one has yet said anything to refute that other than "it's cheaper". As I stated, the need of having the newest and best thing completely trumps over versatility and just about every new piece of technology proves that. No one has yet proved that people wouldn't be willing to spend the money. Just because you can do the same thing on your phone, doesn't mean people wont spend money on something else that does the same thing, because already existing technology supports that concept.



Because no one will notice you purchasing that DIY test in the line at the grocery store? Really? A total of 2 people might know why you're at the clinic as opposed to the random cashier (who has no confidentiality agreement by the way) and the people behind you, the people in the neighboring aisles and the people who saw you pick it up in the aisle.

So, if you're concerned about being ashamed or embarrassed, you're better off doing it confidentially with an expert than around a bunch of strangers who can and will spread rumors.

Uh, what? If the testing device isn't disposable, you would need to clean that off. Cleaning yourself isn't required in any case.

Unless they're in vending machines. Wasn't that mentioned in the OP too?

edit: oh, nvm, it wasn't in the OP, just the full article. My bad, i shouldn't have expected you to have read the whole thing.

Edited, Nov 13th 2010 9:43pm by ThePsychoticOne

Thanks for proving you don't have the first clue how this would work. The device is almost certainly based on a chemical reaction within the disposable chip, which the device then uses to test for the presence of certain chemicals. You can't simply build a device in such a way that you can clean it off and reuse it; it's based on a precisely calibrated chemical balance. You really think doctors would be using all of these disposable testing devices if you could build a device which was directly reusable, let alone in a sanitary fashion? You truly are ignorant.

Virtua Boy?

Are you implying that projects don't fail or that failed projects only failed because of insufficient research? People are fickle and you really don't know how people will react to anything until it's released. The media is a prime example.


I would bet money that a portion of this was "let's see what cool new thing I can get a smart phone to do". As I mentioned, the thought of having the best and newest thing trumps versatility, so I'm sure these developers are simply riding off the success of smart phones, you know like the other 85% of worthless applications that are out there? People buy applications all of the time where there's a free version out there as well. Not only that, people buy applications for things that their phones can already perform. So, for you to think that people wouldn't buy this as a separate device is just stupid.




You missed the point. Your response was merely "ewww, it's pee". I responded that as humans, we have to clean ourselves daily and it isn't simply "urination" or "*****" that is the disgusting part of this concept, it's the concept of unnecessarily integrating those natural events with an every day object. I think it is safe to say that people would like to have minimal time performing such activities, unless you're reading a book. In that case, you're not actually wiping your behind, you're just reading.



Yes, vending machines. You mean the vending machines that are just oh-so scattered ALL over the US?! The only vending machines that I ever see that contained anything other than food or liquid resided outside the US. I don't even see the condom machines in the gas stations anymore.

This is not to say that these machines don't exist in the US, but if you're trying to reach the population, you're left with a decision. A) Build vending machines for the sole purpose of insecure people who have unprotected sex with questionable people or B) add the tests in the aisle next to the condoms and other birth control. Which option do you think will be taken?



That changes what how? I guess I must have missed that the last 10 times that was mentioned, including in my very own post. How did I miss that? Oh, wait, I didn't.




Funny thing about this is that I wasn't the one who brought up the disposable feature, Gbaji did. I went off what he said. When you all contradicted what he said, I merely said that one of you is wrong. Instead of determining which of the two theories were wrong, you continued to attack me, when the truth doesn't even change my point in any way. So, which one is it? People have said at least 2 different ways how this thing works and you say that I didn't read the article.



That's hogwash, such a device would require the power of the latest and greatest iPhone 7 and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. No one would want to buy a separate device to determine if she is pregnant or not. Obviously you haven't done the research of the millions of dollars put in the project that OBVIOUSLY proves that people would rather use their phone than a separate device such as a pregnancy test.

I mean, if you thought you were pregnant, wouldn't you rather use your phone rather than a device specifically designed for such a thing?

I've purchased maybe a half dozen pregnancy tests in my time. They were about $5 per test. That's $30. If I could've spent $0.99 on an app, and $1.50 per test strip to stick in my phone, I would've done it. And I would've saved about $20.

Sounds like a deal to me!

Pretty sure everyone has a computer. And if you're the one person in the world who doesn't have one, but can afford the $1.50 for the test, you could go down to your local library and use one there.

Truth: Urine is more sterile than your spit.

But I have a smart phone. So that argument is moot. Saying, "They're assuming everyone has a smart phone, so this is just stupid" is an idiotic argument. "A market" is left out in every product produced. So what...?

You're just grasping at straws here. Also? Every time you post and say, "Aha! I've thought of something else!!" it reinforces my notion that you think way too much of this place and our collective opinions.

You must be lost.

Are you kidding me?



As someone already pointed out (including me, several times), both solutions would require that some part of the system be disposable. Period. The only variable is whether the part that *isn't* disposable is a single-purpose device build only for testing, or a multi-functional device (like a cell phone or computer) with an app that can read the data from the disposable part.

That's been explained to you at least 4 or 5 times, but you keep on ignoring it.



No one *ever* made that argument. Ever! Zero. Zip. Nada. Didn't happen. It exists only in your imagination. The "chip" that tests the pee or whatever is disposable. It's disposable whether it's connected to a cell phone, a computer, your imaginary separate testing device, or a multi-million dollar tester used in a high end lab. No one except you has been confused about this.



Everyone but you understood that the part you actually put pee onto is thrown away after use. Anyone who understands how pregnancy tests are used, or have ever used blood sugar monitors understand this. There's *always* a disposable part that actually interacts with the body fluids in question.



Sigh... The "reusable function" is the actual analysis of the chemical results. Everyone except you got this right away.



What did you think this quote said? That's me explaining exactly what you are now claiming I wasn't saying. That there's a cheap disposable part and a reusable part. And why not make the reusable part something you already have? I spelled it out for you step by step in this quote. Which makes me wonder why the hell you'd pick this of all things to try to prove your point?


You clearly have some kind of mental block that's just preventing you from understanding what the rest of us are saying here. I could repeat it again, but I'm not sure there's any use. If the lightbulb hasn't gone on yet, I don't know if it ever will.

I'd say very, very few.