Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Just pee into your phoneFollow

#152 Nov 16 2010 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Almalieque wrote:

I am very simple.


I think you vastly overestimate yourself.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#153 Nov 16 2010 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I think you're losing your train of thought somewhere along the way.

My comment about the "already existing technology", was in response to this statement by you:

Almalieque wrote:
When I said "Why would a separate device be built any differently than already existing technology that can do the same job?", I was agreeing to the comment of "It's "more cost effective" to make the disposable component modular enough to connect to existing computing devices". Being able to connect to already existing computer devices is a plus for both the seller and the buyer. As a seller, you wouldn't want to spend money on creating something that isn't compatible with what people already have or on technology that isn't based on already in society. The simple fact that there is no competition, allows the seller to still profit off of it.



I'm frankly at a loss as to what you're talking about. There is no other "existing technology that can do the job" except the expensive lab equipment used in the medical field. How can you possibly make the statement you made earlier and now claim that you weren't talking about the medical field? This is a "new" product that for the first time allows for STI testing *without* requiring expensive tests performed in medical labs.

Once we realize this change, the next question is how best to productize it. Which is what I thought was what you were arguing about. Now I'm not sure what you're even saying...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Nov 16 2010 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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.


Sigh... I've explained this to you at least a half dozen times now.

Start with one fact: That the disposable part (which interacts with the fluid) is relatively inexpensive and has just enough components on it to allow it to be read by some other more expensive device to generate usable results to the end user.


Next fact: What you plug it into doesn't really matter. If my company manufactures and sells the disposable part, I'm going to make it as simple and useful as possible, right? So a strip of reactive paper with a chip connected to it and a standard mini-usb plug at the end. That way anyone can make a "reader" which can look at the results.

Next fact: From the perspective of the consumer, the cost "per test" is the same regardless of what he uses to read the data off the disposable part. The cost *is* the cost of the disposable part. This is the same whether it's connected to a computer, or a cell phone, or an ipad, or some special purpose built device.

Final fact: Also from the perspective of the consumer, it makes vastly more sense for me to spend a few bucks on a software download for a device I already own in order to use the disposable testing part than to spend $50 or $100 or more on a stand alone device. This is simple marketing, right? The only people who would pay to buy a separate device are people who do not own a single computing device capable of connecting to the disposable part or running the software.



Where is the confusion you're having? I could go on and talk about how software licensing and overhead will push this to run on standard devices instead of stand alone as well, but if you aren't getting the very very simple "This is cheaper" argument, I'm not sure how much good that would do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Nov 16 2010 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
So we should have disposable pee-sticks that we plug into our microwaves. Brilliant!
#156 Nov 16 2010 at 9:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nadenu wrote:
So we should have disposable pee-sticks that we plug into our microwaves. Brilliant!


If your microwave has a standard input port on it, a display capable of showing the results of the test, and if someone thinks the "plug your STI test into a microwave" market is big enough to write the software for that platform, sure!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Nov 16 2010 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
So we should have disposable pee-sticks that we plug into our microwaves. Brilliant!


If your microwave has a standard input port on it, a display capable of showing the results of the test, and if someone thinks the "plug your STI test into a microwave" market is big enough to write the software for that platform, sure!


I live in Oak Ridge. We have nuclear microwaves of doom.
#158 Nov 16 2010 at 9:55 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm frankly at a loss as to what you're talking about.


I know exactly what you're talking about, I'm just at a loss on why you insist that I'm referring to stuff that I'm not when we explicitly said the same exact thing multiple times now. Fortunately, your next post should help me explain it one more again to you.

Gbaji wrote:

Start with one fact: That the disposable part (which interacts with the fluid) is relatively inexpensive and has just enough components on it to allow it to be read by some other more expensive device to generate usable results to the end user.


No problem here.

Gbahi wrote:
Next fact: What you plug it into doesn't really matter. If my company manufactures and sells the disposable part, I'm going to make it as simple and useful as possible, right? So a strip of reactive paper with a chip connected to it and a standard mini-usb plug at the end. That way anyone can make a "reader" which can look at the results.


The bold part is what I've been saying to you. It doesn't matter what you plug the stick into. This means that it didn't have to be a cell phone, it could have been another simple electronic device with a mini-usb plug. The cell phones were chosen to be compatible just because they wanted it to be compatible with the cell phones.

Gbaji wrote:
Next fact: From the perspective of the consumer, the cost "per test" is the same regardless of what he uses to read the data off the disposable part. The cost *is* the cost of the disposable part. This is the same whether it's connected to a computer, or a cell phone, or an ipad, or some special purpose built device.


No problem here..

Gbaji wrote:
Final fact: Also from the perspective of the consumer, it makes vastly more sense for me to spend a few bucks on a software download for a device I already own in order to use the disposable testing part than to spend $50 or $100 or more on a stand alone device. This is simple marketing, right? The only people who would pay to buy a separate device are people who do not own a single computing device capable of connecting to the disposable part or running the software.


My point wasn't from the consumer and I've told you that already. This is where YOU'RE getting confused. If it is in favor the consumer, then it is more than likely a conflict in interest with the producer.

You're making this waaay too difficult. You keep making these wild assumptions that a different device must cost so much money to produce. Once again, this is very simple...

You have the disposable stick. You make it to where it is read by a USB port. You create a device with a USB port. You make it where the stick only interacts with the software on the device (or some other type of block), you know, kinda like what Apple does with their stuff? People eventually find loop holes, but usually by that time, most customers just "go with the flow" as intended.

Think about it like trying to play a Sega Saturn game on a Playstion or a Xbox game on a PS2 or a PS3 game on a Wii. They can all be the same game, but they will only interact with certain hardware.

Gbaji wrote:
Where is the confusion you're having? I could go on and talk about how software licensing and overhead will push this to run on standard devices instead of stand alone as well, but if you aren't getting the very very simple "This is cheaper" argument, I'm not sure how much good that would do.


I misunderstood your earlier post, but trust me on this... you're the one confused on this. We're saying the same thing but yet you keep attaching what I'm saying to something that I'm not saying.

You've already said it already, so I'm not sure why you're still arguing with me. There is nothing special about cell phones and this is/can operate on other everyday devices.. THIS MEANS THAT IT'S ONLY ON CELL PHONES BECAUSE THEY WANTED IT TO BE, DUE TO THE HYPE OF APPLICATIONS If smart phones and applications weren't "in", they would probably be "pc only". If you agree with those statements, then please dump out all other misinterpretations that you've gathered, because we agree on that part.
#159 Nov 16 2010 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Got a girlfriend yet Alma?

No?

Thought not...

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#160 Nov 17 2010 at 4:21 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Nadenu wrote:
So we should have disposable pee-sticks that we plug into our microwaves. Brilliant!
So afterward, we can use them as glo-sticks. That's awesome Nads. The kids will love it.
____________________________
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

#161 Nov 17 2010 at 5:32 AM Rating: Decent
Alma is an idiot. Can you people please move on to other things now?
#162REDACTED, Posted: Nov 17 2010 at 11:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nadenu,
#163 Nov 17 2010 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nadenu,

Quote:
I live in Oak Ridge.


So you're either trailer trash or a scientist; I leave it to the members of this board to guess which.



Or both!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 380 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (380)