New medical implant? Walletmed

Okay, payment implants were, due to their relatively short lifespan, never an option for me - but a glassy that could monitor some stuff and maybe even work as a payment implant sounds nice.
I am sceptical because of several things, though… one of them is definitely the not-so-good-working walletmor thing itself, but there are other things about the planned walletmed that make me worry (aside from the stuff Pilgrim already said).

If you want to do payment, placement in the hand or wrist is the best or rather only viable option. I guess it will work for glucose monitoring as well, but the video says the chip can measure temperature, too - this won’t work at all in your hand. Not. At. All. I mean, it will take some sort of temperature, but this makes absolutely no sense. So why is there this ability at all? To me, it sounds a bit like “okay, people might be interested in monitoring stuff (which is true, see smartwatches, fitness trackers and all that), so let’s just put some of those inside the implant”. No matter if it makes sense or not.
So, glucose monitoring? Fine. Temperature? Cool idea. Maybe even stuff like blood pressure, whatever might be possible in the long run. But this implant would have to be placed in a way that would make interacting with a payment terminal totally ridiculous.

I doubt that this will happen.

  1. Thousands of people? Okay, if the implant is really working, doing a good job, and actually meets people’s needs, this might happen. Especially because it’s a glassy, so the threshold to just “try it out” is a lot lower. Still depends on the price, distribution, and the trust people have towards the brand itself.
  2. To reach “homogenous social acceptance” might take a lot of time. Pacemakers are socially accepted because people might very well just die without them, same with gene treatment for cancer and the like. But like you say yourself, gene treatment to modify “unneccessary” stuff like hair colour or sex (you can’t choose your child’s gender, your child might happen to do that by themselves :wink: ) is generally frowned upon. I have a temperature chip myself, and while lots of people find that funny or cool, the most frequent reaction is “well - why don’t you just use a thermometer?”.
    It might actually help your case that those minimal invasive glucose monitors are quite a thing by now.
  3. There will always be side effects. It’s a glassy, so in this forum we all know it will most likely do no harm at all. But there will be people who do stupid stuff during healing and risk rejection or infection. There might even be people who do stupid stuff afterwards and somehow manage to break the implant. There will be the usual technical issues, some implants themselves might fail. If you reached point 2 by that time, as in, the implant is spread around and at least a bit known outside this community, media will jump on everything that went wrong and might (or might not - I already see those yellow press headlines “Massive headaches and sleeplessness after I got implanted” :smile:) have been caused by the implant.

Another tiny thing in the video (and I know it’s just a promo video which is not to be taken too seriously) - I guess you will have to use a proprietary app to scan your implant? So, same problem that’s already going on with the BeUno. By making it bound to your app, you push away parts of the pretty privacy-aware community you find here and among other tech-savyy and implant-friendly forums. And I am not sure how many customers (especially lets-just-try-this-out-guinea-pig-customers) you have beyond those communities.

4 Likes

I didn’t see the proprietary app,

Yep That’s probably a deal Breaker for me…

Beyond the temperature not being worth the reading in a hand, given the levels of struggles to get a flex to read, I don’t think there’s a chance for a glassie payment chip to be readable

2 Likes

I don’t have anything to do with Walletmed or whatever, but I do have plans to make more sensor implants in the future. Talking about proprietary apps being a deal breaker, I wanted some feedback.

You understand that businesses need to make money, which is directly opposed to the desires of the product’s users. This is my plan to address this issue.

Have a paid (probably subscription) app for implants of this nature that processes the data into useful information for you, which will be useful for the vast majority of planned users. Also without any app (or a lighter one that is open source if necessary from a technical standpoint) you can get the raw data values spat out from the analog frontend which a group of enterprising users could then put together into a DIY dataset.

It’s more of a compromise, and if I’m honest it’s weighted more towards the benefit of the users. They or another company could then just undercut all of the profit making potential of the product. For a faceless corp I’m all for that, but for something like VivoKey we need that money to make more implants and continue to press for societal acceptance, so it’s kind of double edged.

1 Like

Have you considered that since the raw data is accessible the community might make an open source free app that does all of what your subscription app does?
Unless you have some advanced processing and features that can’t be reverse-engeneered and replicated but on simple sensor data I’m not sure what that would be… Maybe you provide some cloud storage and AI processing that can’t possibly be available for free or some partnership with other services/companies :thinking:

I wasn’t even considering there to be a subscription
(That’s even worse)

I am getting sick of companies / corps getting tired of working on something… or wanting to go in a “new direction” etc and scuttling something

I have a nice flashlight that has a Bluetooth module in it. Sounds dumb but it was actually pretty cool, I could remotely activate, check battery status, reprogram etc

But it uses a proprietary app, and eventually they got bought out, and they new owner didn’t want anything to do with it… so now I can’t use any of those features since the app won’t work anymore

I’m lucky I can use it analog, and that they didn’t brick it on the way out the door

I have a few video games that were great, multiplayer only… only had for 2 years before the company decided they didn’t wanna maintain servers anymore, I fully understand and agree they shouldn’t have to maintain anything if they don’t want… but I’m beginning to support the notion that they should be legally obligated to release the code to run things ourselves when they want out

The spark 2 Vivokey is a good example,I appreciate the balance he struck… I also went into spark 2 purely to test the waters

Vivokey easily could have been a more typical corp and just bricked all function over night

I’m slowly learning about apex but it appears that even if Vivokey just imploded, they can’t turn the apex functions off… so I’m considering it

What I would accept would be something along the lines of a xBT in nfc… it spits out data you can mostly make sense of… but any nfc app can read it

If you want to make a sell a “premium app” that then displays it nicer and logs data, possibly cloud log, I could support that being paid

But my basic line is, it needs to work without any one company existing

5 Likes

i think this is a good idea to explore, and while legislation is not likely to see the light of day, it might be possible to offer such a solution in a license agreement of some kind. I don’t know how binding that might be but I think it could be worth exploring from a legal perspective.

2 Likes

That’s what i’m looking for at the stuff i buy.
I try to avoid a thing if it stops working just because a company could decide it isn’t worth it anymore.
And if that thing is something like an implant, it makes it a hard no-no for me.
If the company wants to sell some app or service around it, i’ll happily buy that if it’s worth it’s money.
But it shouldn’t artificially prevent others from doing so, i would rather pay a few bucks more than being stuck with something that might stop working any moment.

A solid bail-out plan might change a thing there, but only if it’s worth it’s paper.
A “we might provide stuff if we go out of business” doesn’t count.

I think you all need some magnets :wink: also I agree and it’s completely applicable in this simple sensor data scenario. Actually I talked about this with Disruptive and although it’s not in their short term plans they didn’t seem completely closed to the idea. I think they’re waiting to be sure the whole thing is viable an profitable with the general public before opening up to hackers.

Yeah definitely, that’s what I was talking about when I said

The idea being that the vast majority of users just want to: pay money, get service. Time to fuck around with a DIY solution is a commodity they don’t have, so most people will just pay the subscription to keep their product working and ensure it stays alive and gets new features.

Most people are not driven open source makers. That extremely small subset of the population that would be willing to work a sideloaded solution and then use it will make an app that requires a bit of fiddling, because they’re smart and driven, but most people won’t want to deal with that. So the subscription app persists. It’s also likely because of the funding and focus, the official app would be more reliable and have more features. I understand as a savvy consumer wanting it to be open source, but people have to recognize the reality of the situation. This is a compromise that let’s both parties walk away only partly bruised.

The one area where this falls through is if a larger company comes along, and instead of paying for or buying out the tech, they just use this “vulnerability” to make their own version of the product with very little work and sell it for slightly less, claiming the entire market. In an economic sense that’s like “boohoo for them, oh well” but for a company like VivoKey that I genuinely believe has objectives greater than a profit motive, that would result in a faceless corp stealing the market and then being free and clear to do shitty things like deactivating apps and products and screwing over the users.

2 Likes

Great points, @Coma !

I’ll even ride on this one:

It reminds me of the design moto:
“If you design something that even a monkey can use, only a monkey will want to use it”

So an implant could serve either the purpose of “making medical implants which will normalize this whole thing” OR to perform payments…
It just can’t do both!
(not only because of the obvious flaws @coma pointed out)

And the same goes to the branding and company behind it.
Just by tossing the word “Wallet” together with “Med(icine)”, you are begging for people from both sides to run away from it!

I mean… Arguably, “bills” and “money” are the leaders in the most negative associations people make with medicine, especially in the USA, which is the primary market if you want to make Visa and Mastercard to change their minds.

So maybe if you ditch the branding and start a whole new company for that implant, completely dissociated from walletmor… Maybe it stands a change fo achieving it’s goal.

+1

Cool!

There are some key issues there.

  • a proprietary app is acceptable either if you trust the source of if you don’t care about what it could take from you.

In the VivoKey case, Amal and his customer care policy makes so that the majority of his public trusts him.

For a random faceless company this is not the case.

Also, charging for a compulsory membership is not the only way to raise money…
And in a medical device, there are some exacerbated factors where people are just generally afraid of having their privacies broken.

4 Likes

Also this:

the best approach to all of those issues is the, now “adjectified”, “Amal approach”: Make people love you so they won’t try to screw you! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

That’s an example of a great approach! :point_up_2:

And lastly, still on @Eriequiet 's point:

  • A subscription plan does not ensure a product stays alive. The company making profit does (well… almost. we’re full of companies turning profit and still being bought just to be shut down… Meta.io anyone?)

  • But a proprietary app almost ensures that if the company isn’t making enough profit, then they’ll take their toys and leave, abandoning the users who paid from day 1 without a care in the world.

VivoKey is directly correlated to the Amal factor. Therefore it might pull that off and still hold a majority of it’s supporters…

But that has also been said about Unreal, and they managed to grow and stab everyone in the back! :woman_shrugging:
I personally don’t think it would happen, but you asked for feedback and this might be something going through people’s minds…

1 Like

Fair enough. It sounds like there’s no path available where users like you would be satisfied while still allowing a company to grow and prosper though, which kind of leaves us at an impasse :thinking:

Not that I’m advocating for a “company centric” approach to anything. Just trying to navigate this difficult situation while still being able to popularize implants. If it were up to me we’d abolish currency entirely, but that doesn’t mean I won’t recognize and work around the factors at play to benefit everybody.

There are paths available.
Many paths. I even touched a couple in my last post, but…

I’ll gloss over the unnecessary burn ( :expressionless: :sweat_smile: ) there and focus on what matters:

  • It has nothing to do with money, and it doesn’t need to impact the way a company grows.

Basically, there are two types of people in the world who come on top. Which leads to two types of companies in the world which can grow.

  • The ones who do their best, and are great at what they do. These embrace competition and their growth comes as a result of offering a great service/etc… Amal would be a great example here.

or…

  • The ones who know they can’t do much or can’t do better. These are terrified that someone bigger will come along, so they try to reduce everyone else so that by comparison they are on top. These are the kinds of companies who typically put money ahead and jump into “proprietary legal walls” because if someone else is able to offer anything similar as they do, they know they would be exposed for overcharging, double dipping, offering a subpar service, etc…

Okay, so options:

  • Make money from multiple sources
  • Make money from the giants while helping the small folk (i.e. with a health implant, take the money from insurance companies, not from customers)
  • Charge per unit not for the right of using something which is inside someone else (which feels kinda unethical and messed up)
  • Use crowdfunding or subscription models
  • etc,etc,etc…

Or my favourite: Leave it open source.
This way you can…

Make it so people can build their own… but then you offer a better, paid and pre-built, option.
This removes both the “I’m feeling trapped” and “they might be doing something dodgy” feelings.
Also, building something efficient is hard and most people would rather pay for a good app.
You gain points for being seen as an ethical company in the process…
If you charge a fair price, other companies will have no reason to try and cut you, because they won’t be able to outdo you…
Keep innovating, so there’s more reason for people to back you by subscribing to an optional, better app…
And make something of high quality.

As I mentioned before, the issue has nothing to do with money.
The main problems of a system being locked down to a proprietary app are concequences of the “locked down” part. Not the “proprietary”.

Also, just for the record, since you asked for feedback on the matter I was raising points which, as I mentioned, I don’t even personally agree with but see many people defending.

4 Likes

Sorry for insulting, I didn’t mean to be a dick. There are tons of other people who feel that way, I wasn’t trying to call you out. We’re just trying to figure this out together. I don’t even see it as an “argument”. We’re both bringing up points on behalf of other people’s views that we unfortunately have to work around. I figure we would both want a utopia where we don’t have to worry about these things.

You’re throwing a lot out there, so I’ll try and address each piece.

Money is a pretty serious concern. People want it to be free. They especially don’t want a subscription model (like Eriequiet posted). I feel like having the device release the raw data with or without the company existing to support the app is a good compromise there, and if people want to pay for a better option then it’s there. I’ll tell you though, looking at the numbers it’s not viable to do one time costs at implant purchase for some of this stuff, because it will end up being so high people won’t be willing/able to pay it. Making money off of insurance companies sounds like a good out, but they always end up foisting those costs onto the consumers in other ways and it’s out of our hands. Insurance companies are parasites.

Making the real app open source doesn’t address the concern I stated about another company just stealing everything and white labeling it. I think open-source is the best move for the consumer, but it definitely makes sense that a company would be unwilling to pursue that route.

Having the raw data available at least allows the consumers some guarantee of functionality while still maintaining solvency for the company. I really don’t see another way given the hell we’re trapped in :melting_face:

3 Likes

No hard feelings.
I just couldn’t let an opportunity for a good emoji to pass me by :sweat_smile:

My bad… I kinda braindump when I post =P

My point is that these might look like related Items but they are not.

People want things to be free just like they want to be bedding supermodels. But when push comes to shove ( :smirk: :dad_joke: ), people unbegrudgingly pay for services they either need or like.

So back to our glucose example…
People need to monitor glucose? Yes.
Would people pay a subscription fee to be able to use an implant for that? When there are cheaper and easier options around? Probably not…

Which means people would pay for your service if… they like it.

Be it “medical” or what, anything similar to what we are discussing here is a luxury, therefore any monetization around it should be thought up with that in mind.

So what’s up with a “subscription model”?
to give you an example: personally, I don’t feel like I own anything which I subscribe to.
And I hate the Idea to implant something on myself which I don’t own.

So that’s not “because I have to pay”. it’s not because of money…

It’s everything else that comes bundled in a “subscription model”, which thanks to so many companies that came before us, is now enshrouded in “dodgy”, “scammy”, “cold and unrelatable”… and other adjectives that push people away.

No, but doing it better does.
Yet, you don’t need to make your app opensource. Just the core…
Think Chromium vs Chrome.

People don’t choose Opera over Chrome because “oh, they made a cheaper version!” they choose Opera because Google became an unrelatable corpzilla (and because they hide in a hole so never heard of Firefox… :woman_shrugging:)

That alone would literally resolve the whole “hidden behind a proprietary app” issue.

Now, talking about personal my views, since they came into focus…
I refuse to pay an “Adobe Subscription”, but I gladly donate money for Photopea, Blender foundation, DT club…

Similarly, I would feel weird about paying subscription to allow me to use an implant… just because that feels dystopian AF.

But I would happily purchase an app that makes me dealing with said implant a bit more convenient. And would (and do) happily help fund the implant’s creators with a monthly payment far higher than I would accept paying for any service they could offer me.

2 Likes

Cool, then we’re good. That’s what I was asking

Thought you were looking for more general feedback.

One of the issues that needs thinking as well is…
What’s the purpose?

To make immediate cash for the company?
if so, then subscription/app are a good way to go.

or…

To make an implant which becomes easily popular and spreads the notion to the general public, thus growing the available market for the company, allowing it to later capitalize on said growth and make logarithmically more money down the road?

Because for this, then making a cheap implant which can be read by any phone with a free app might be the way to go.
When we think of general public, then a lot of people can’t afford a subscription, Media will hit and label it as “elitist”, etc,etc…
So making a free cheap implant, even if in the immediate scenario the company isn’t growing, might allow for much bigger returns in the short future.

That’s what we’ve been doing, but serious design undertakings like this require a lot of money to even get off the ground, and we won’t/can’t tap the small community of early adopter implantees for all they’re worth just to get something passable. The scale of these undertakings are much greater than anything DT has ever pursued, that’s why VivoKey exists.

1 Like

Wojtek’s approach of giving it a medical appeal to attract investors and ease adoption isn’t viable for DT?
It’s kinda what Elon’s doing with neuralink afaik

Also hear me out… What do you have in your pokets?
Keys, wallet, phone…

vivo-KEY
WALLET-med

I see a patern

It could be, but we have to tread those waters very carefully. “Investors” means people with a say in the company’s activities that only have an interest in making money.

4 Likes