Ford - Your car will soon be an extension of your doctor among other things

[SSdude]

I was at a recent Microsoft partner event where they demoed some cool health and wellness apps embedded in your car. MS has tied up with Ford and is working on a number of pilots [example below] . I wonder why GM/Chevy is not jumping onto the in car application services bandwagon? These are going to be killer features in the not so distant future. Got to hand it to FORD for their in-car technology services integration vision. GM are you listening?


http://techland.time.com/2011/10/20/...ave-your-life/

[DuhKoDuh]

Originally Posted by SSdude

I was at a recent Microsoft partner event where they demoed some cool health and wellness apps embedded in your car. MS has tied up with Ford and is working on a number of pilots [example below] . I wonder why GM/Chevy is not jumping onto the in car application services bandwagon? These are going to be killer features in the not so distant future. Got to hand it to FORD for their in-car technology services integration vision. GM are you listening?


http://techland.time.com/2011/10/20/...ave-your-life/

I think Onstar is holding us back from that stuff? idk though..lol

[el ess A]

Guh-aaaayyyyyy.

Just drive to the doctor and quit being an idiot. If you have diabetes, you shouldn't depend on Ford to worry about your health. I don't even depend on Ford to build a car I'd want to buy, let alone talk to me about my health.

[Sir Nuke]

Originally Posted by el ess X

Guh-aaaayyyyyy.

Just drive to the doctor and quit being an idiot. If you have diabetes, you shouldn't depend on Ford to worry about your health. I don't even depend on Ford to build a car I'd want to buy, let alone talk to me about my health.

if your depending on your car to ensure your OK, LAZY PEOPLE, and we have a butt load of them in the world, will depend on them, and when some of them about drop dead or do drop dead, they will SUE and probably win.....becasue they weren't warned enough.

will people, on the whole, EVER go back to thinking for themselves insted of relying on some BOX to think for them?

[SSdude]

Originally Posted by Sir Nuke

if your depending on your car to ensure your OK, LAZY PEOPLE, and we have a butt load of them in the world, will depend on them, and when some of them about drop dead or do drop dead, they will SUE and probably win.....becasue they weren't warned enough.

I'm afraid I don't agree on the Lazy argument.
I'm not sure if you guys even read the article. Essentially the end-state vision is to have monitors/devices embedded within various areas of the car [e.g. steering , seat etc] . These monitors capture your health data [heart rate,glucose level] and leverage the MS cloud platforms like HealthVault etc and tell you if you are in danger of a life threatening condition [e.g. increased heart rate in high risk heart patients etc] . Maybe even prevent you from drinking and driving. And you guys think these are meaningless features?

I think you actually missed the main point of the post. The main point being FORD is getting aggressive on its vision of providing In-car technology services [Health Management is just one] where GM does not seem to have anything concrete laid out in that space. The point of the post was to discuss that.

[Sir Nuke]

Originally Posted by SSdude

I think you actually missed the main point of the post. The main point being FORD is getting aggressive on its vision of providing In-car technology services [Health Management is just one] where GM does not seem to have anything concrete laid out in that space. The point of the post was to discuss that.

Oh I got it.....and having in-car tech is pretty cool, I wish we had more of it in our GM products.....when it pertains to the car, and its features, like the sound system and teh like.

[valnzula]

yeah and when speed it will spit out a ticket. so be careful what you wish for

[KXRM]

I have to kind of agree with the anti-tech people here. I am in technology for a living and I just do not think this level of automation is necessary nor do I feel it is leading us to a better existence. I can certainly see some good from it, like the diabetic example. However, taking it a step further and limiting the car's use if it detects a problem is just one more way to confuse the usage of the car and make it harder to operate.

A car like any tool, takes responsibility to own and use. Handing over that responsibility to other systems and people creates a situation I am not comfortable with, and that is allowing someone to actively control the usage of my personal property based on arbitrary information that could be unrelated to actual vehicle conditions or even the driver.

Taking it a step further, if the vehicle were made to disallow usage based on health circumstances. Would it take factors like the weather or time of day into consideration? What if I am living work late and the building is locked up tight and my vehicle decides that I shouldn't be driving despite the fact that it is 1am and -10F outside?

I think services and tech are great to a limited degree, but a paramount rule is that I choose how and when I drive my vehicle, even if the cloud doesn't agree.

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by KXRM

I have to kind of agree with the anti-tech people here. I am in technology for a living and I just do not think this level of automation is necessary nor do I feel it is leading us to a better existence. I can certainly see some good from it, like the diabetic example. However, taking it a step further and limiting the car's use if it detects a problem is just one more way to confuse the usage of the car and make it harder to operate.

A car like any tool, takes responsibility to own and use. Handing over that responsibility to other systems and people creates a situation I am not comfortable with, and that is allowing someone to actively control the usage of my personal property based on arbitrary information that could be unrelated to actual vehicle conditions or even the driver.

Taking it a step further, if the vehicle were made to disallow usage based on health circumstances. Would it take factors like the weather or time of day into consideration? What if I am living work late and the building is locked up tight and my vehicle decides that I shouldn't be driving despite the fact that it is 1am and -10F outside?

I think services and tech are great to a limited degree, but a paramount rule is that I choose how and when I drive my vehicle, even if the cloud doesn't agree.

Here's a well written article for all those who jump into technology blindly...

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/5-thi...%94-but-should

[coolman]

My brothers wife is a very bad diabetic and before she got her pump she was involved in two crashes from going into diabetic shock. This app could have saved a lot of problems.
I don't think any of you Debby downer have been around a person with this problem. I say hats off to Ford for being in the forefront of technology.

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by coolman

My brothers wife is a very bad diabetic and before she got her pump she was involved in two crashes from going into diabetic shock. This app could have saved a lot of problems.
I don't think any of you Debby downer have been around a person with this problem. I say hats off to Ford for being in the forefront of technology.

First... I've been around plenty of relatives & friends with "this problem", I understand it.

But, (don't take this the wrong way) this is "their problem", and there are better ways. Not... I'm going to go jump in my Ford and check my blood sugar.

I personally have serious health issues, and I keep on top of them myself... it's a good practice to get into. Personal responsibility.

Therefore adding cost to a vehicle that has absolutely nothing to do with the vehicle itself, nor needed by the majority, just doesn't seem smart. It sounds more like a gimmick!

I am sorry for your brother's wife, but in-car technology isn't the answer.

[coolman]

Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner

First... I've been around plenty of relatives friends with "this problem", I understand it.

But, (don't take this the wrong way) this is "their problem", and there are better ways. Not... I'm going to go jump in my Ford and check my blood sugar.

I personally have serious health issues, and I keep on top of them myself... it's a good practice to get into. Personal responsibility.

Therefore adding cost to a vehicle that has absolutely nothing to do with the vehicle itself, nor needed by the majority, just doesn't seem smart. It sounds more like a gimmick!

I am sorry for your brother's wife, but in-car technology isn't the answer.

A feature that can save lives is far from a gimmick. Unless you've seen what I'm taking about first hand you won't get it. But there are clearly people that do or they wouldn't have developed it in the first place. I guess people used to think that seat belts and air bags were gimmicks at one time too.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by SSdude

I was at a recent Microsoft partner event where they demoed some cool health and wellness apps embedded in your car. MS has tied up with Ford and is working on a number of pilots [example below] . I wonder why GM/Chevy is not jumping onto the in car application services bandwagon? These are going to be killer features in the not so distant future. Got to hand it to FORD for their in-car technology services integration vision. GM are you listening?


http://techland.time.com/2011/10/20/...ave-your-life/

[5thGenOwner]

Originally Posted by coolman

A feature that can save lives is far from a gimmick. Unless you've seen what I'm taking about first hand you won't get it. But there are clearly people that do or they wouldn't have developed it in the first place. I guess people used to think that seat belts and air bags were gimmicks at one time too.

Seat Belts and Air Bags are directly related to the automobile, and are there for when things do go wrong... not to prevent them from happening. Seat Belts and Air Bags apply to 100% of the people who drive/ride in the vehicle. You can attempt to make the comparison, but these are not apples to apples comparisons.

A gimmick, in my opinion, is something that applies to a fraction of the people, meaning the rest of the people would never have a use for it. OnStar, in my book, was a gimmick (that hasn't really worked out.)

Teaching people that Technology will do the work for them; conditioning people to rely on the technology... is not a good road to go down. You say it saves lives... what happens when that technology fails? Hint, read the article I linked above, 228 passengers died.