Just pee into your phoneFollow

I'm really glad that you mentioned that again. Earlier, it was argued that it was more cost effective to use the cell phone because it was using the technology of the cell phone. If you can also use any 'ol computer from the library, then that means that this technology already existed and isn't exclusive to the phone. This means, this was created for phone usage because they thought it would be cool to use it as an application on your phone. So, as I said earlier, they are riding the hype of people using worthless applications. Which further proves my point that if you can sell it well, people will buy it.



First, I never said that they didn't do any research, that was a claim that you created by yourself. I simply stated that they would have made money selling it as a separate device because there is a market that would go for it. What has happened was that there was decision made and they went with their decision. I don't know what their results yielded and I am not pretending that I do know, but there is no denying the fact that there isn't enough money in the world to accurately predict the mass minds of people. Look how much money, effort and experience politicians put into campaigning, then a celebrity can view their opinion in the public and people follow suit. Remember the Oprah Winfrey "beef scandal", she made an indirect comment and it effected sales.

You can't call everything that I've mentioned an exception. Not only were they not off the wall examples, but they were your examples. If all of these examples are "hot items", you can't claim that it's all a coincidence. History and the present is against you on this. Once again, have you not seen an infomercial? If you can sell it well, people will buy it. Once an object has made a name for itself, the first few updates are usually the biggest, but after that, they are usually minor to no changes, yet the prices will increase. This is because it is a known fact that people will buy it. Major changes only follow after they start to lose their target audience.



Soooo by you claiming it's moot is your way of saying that you wouldn't buy a phone if you didn't have it. I'm not grasping at straws, it's just that the more that I think about the presented arguments, the more I realized how its flawed. Forgive me for thinking out aloud.

When I asked you a hypothetical question that was in your favor, you answered it saying that you would use your phone and save $20. When I asked you a hypothetical question that wasn't in your favor, you respond that it's moot because you already have a phone. Under the same line of thinking, the first point should have equally been moot as you already purchased the pregnancy test and probably didn't have a smart phone when you purchased them.

So, basically you're just shaping answers to benefit your point.

Trying to argue with Alma is like arguing with a brick wall.

Either you give up, or get out the wrecking ball.

Someone needs to fill Katie's void.

Is that possible?

Posting on Page 3 of a thread.

You just had to float that one out there, didn't ya?

Yeah, that was how I noticed you completely missed the point. Most people aren't so obvious about it but you went above and beyond the call. Thank you.

Well yeah, since a computer can do everything a phone can do. Smart phones are basically just really small, ****** laptops. With the uh...phone thing too i guess.

Um... Because "already existing technology" requires the use of very expensive lab equipment. That equipment is expensive because it can perform a wide assortment of different tests, not just testing for a set of common STIs.

This is "new technology" for doing a simple version of just one type of test. And if one is going to build a cheap/disposable reactive component for said test, it makes far more sense to design it to be easily connected to existing computing devices like PCs and cell phones than to design it in a way that would require a separate device that would have to be designed and built as well.

That's the part I don't think you are quite grasping.



Well. As I said in my very first post, the "seller" here is the cell phone industry. So yes, absolutely a component of this is the desire to generate new "killer apps" that will push cell phone sales. But another aspect of this is the "chocolate and peanut-butter" concept. You have on the one hand the massive advancement of small portable computing devices, commonly appearing in the form of a cell phone (but not limited to them of course). On the other hand is the need to offload the costs of expensive but common tests from the medical industry. You marry the two and get this. Yay capitalism!



Except that the "functionality" is limited to the what the disposable component can pick up chemically from the sample put into/on it. And, I suppose, the programming of the device that's going to analyze said chemical reactions. A standalone device would be an unnecessary expense in that context since a cell phone, ipad, computer, etc can all easily be updated to include the latest software, while a stand alone device would require that extra features be added to enable that functionality (increasing the cost).

Put it another way: You'd need a device with an input port that could connect to and read from the disposable part. You'd need some memory and processing power. You'd need some software to run the test. You'd need a display to show the results, and perhaps some input mechanism and interface. And you'd need some means to update the software as new/better tests are generated. Every single one of those things are already present on a smartphone or computer. I'm not saying you *can't* build and sell a stand alone device that does all of this, but why? I suppose you might capture the market of people who don't own any sort of multi-purpose device that can already do all of those things. That's a really really tiny market.



More per unit, but not more in total. And you're also losing sight that the folks pushing this are the cell phone developers. They want to find new things that people can use their phone to do in order to drum up sales of the newest/latest smartphones. The more features and things that a single device can do, the more people will want to buy it. Obviously, no one's going to choose to buy a smartphone because they can get cheap STI tests. But when you add that function to dozens of other functions, then the choice to buy a new phone with more features becomes a more attractive one.

That's the push for this. I guess what I don't understand is that you seem to be arguing that there's no reason for cell phones to include new features like GPS, or playing music, or games, or browsing the internet, or any of several dozen things modern phones can do beyond just placing phone calls because there are other things that can do that too. Well yeah, but that kinda misses the point.



Sure. And I'm not discounting that someone wont make a stand along device just for doing this. But that does not remove the reasons to make this app for use with cell phones.



Let's imagine for the sake of argument that I work for a company that doesn't design stand alone medial testing devices, but instead develops, patents and licenses new chip designs to go into the latest cell phones. Can you possibly understand that there might just be a drive to work with downstream vendors to find applications that actually use all the new wizbang features of those latest designs in order to generate revenue? And if, along the way, this results in some new time and money saving feature for the customers, doesn't everybody win?

I mean, I suppose we could sit on our asses and pass up making money so that some other company making stand alone testing devices could charge 10 times as much for the same thing, and laugh at those stupid consumers getting screwed over, but that would be kinda dumb, wouldn't it?



Odd? It's called competition. The guy who brings the best product to market at the lowest price wins. Ergo, everyone involved with developing something like this designed to leverage existing multi-functional devices makes money. And at the same time, the end user gets some new thing added to the list of new things that he has available to him at a lower price than otherwise.


We make money. The customer gets something for less cost. The only "loser" is the guy who wanted to build expensive stand alone devices in order to maximize his profit while ******** over the customer. He loses, but that's a good result in this case, isn't it?

Edited, Nov 15th 2010 7:48pm by gbaji

perpetual motion posting machine.

Hahahahaha.... it's funny because you're retarded. I obviously meant you missed the point I was making but have fun talking to yourself about your own point or whatever you think you're doing.


srsly

I think you're still missing something:

The medical industry already has equipment to do these kinds of tests. They buy very expensive testers which can analyze a wide assortment of different materials using a wide assortment of different tests. Of course, they have to buy these things (or rent them, whatever) from some company which makes such things. That represents a cost to them (but presumably a profit for the tester manufacturer).

If a hospital can offload some of the things they use those testers for, they can reduce their total costs over time. Marketing some simple tests like this to the public allows them to save money (since people wont be coming in to them for the tests, which is relevant in a socialized medical system like in the UK). If you can get people to spend a few bucks of their own money instead of walking in and getting a "free" STI test (which isn't really free btw), the net savings is worth the effort.

There are other benefits as well, including leveraging of the technology into the future (which can save money on lab testing as well), the potential that different medical companies can create the testing kits themselves and turn a profit from that, and other things that we can't know yet.


It's kind of a win/win for everyone. I suppose you could argue that the guys who manufacture and sell the big lab testing stuff lose, but I'll let you in on a secret: The same companies that make testing equipment used in medical labs *also* make the testing equipment which is used to test computer chips. Surprised yet? So they get their money whether it's selling testers to medial labs *or* selling testers to chip manufacturers. They don't really care either way.



I also suspect you are envisioning some kind of market model in which a cabal of producers sit around in a star chamber somewhere and decide how best to develop products so as to maximize their collective profits. But that's not really how it works. The reality is that those industries are constantly in competition with each other. That's why finding a cheaper and more useful product for the consumer tends to happen instead of a less useful and more expensive one. Each company in each related industry will push for their solution (because that way they get the profits). The one that puts the best product out there wins. It's not like the cell phone companies are going to sit around with the stand-alone device companies and say "We could make 15 cents profit per unit while providing a $5 test cost to each customer by leveraging out phone tech, but you could make a $1.50 profit per unit on selling that same test by forcing people to use a stand alone device, so we'll let you take the larger profit and you'll owe us one".


That doesn't happen. Not in an actual free market.

This isn't the first time..



Well, I thought it was also obvious that I knew what you meant and I just turned it around for you to see that I was never entertaining your fictional "point", but reinstating my point that if you sell something well, then people will buy it. Hence, why I asked how I didn't get my own point because that's what I've been arguing the entire time..... and you call me retarded? hahaha...



Yes, seriously...




Naw, I'm sure it's you this time..

By "already existing technology", I'm not talking about the medical field, but the everyday technology that we already have. This has nothing to do with their current medical equipment. My point is, that the "cheaper" technology that you are referencing to, that is combined with cell phones, didn't have to be done in favor of cellphones. This is very simple.

The medical field could have released a smaller, cheaper device that did the same thing that didn't utilize cellphone applications. They decided to for whatever reason and you can't say because of competition because there is no competition. This is what I've been saying since post one.