Comment by brandonb 10 months ago
We have an app which delivers medical care, and Apple let us on but required proof of medical licenses, malpractice insurance, etc. Medical apps are allowed, but there's a higher bar for evidence.
The papers are mentioned here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200714114922/http://www.glasse...
Unfortunately, no. Company was called InnovisionLabs, renamed GlassesOff, if I'm not mistaken. Website is down, and I wouldn't expect it to be up — company's runway ended about 2016. And the two apps we released (one looking like a game with some basketball player branding, and another one from scratch, with clean, medical design) are probably removed from app stores too.
What was the mechanism that improved vision? I have worked on medical devices and of course waiting on a clinical study is difficult for any business and many fail for one reason or another. But as an ecosystem for medical software Apple does quite a lot of damage compared to conventional platforms.
Simply not true. I once spoke to an old coworker (who's now a senior executive at a Fortune 500 company, not Apple). And he said in these large companies, there is so much discussion around risk, because the larger the company, the more of a juicy target they are for lawyers and lawsuits.
So the thought that Apple wouldn't have their ducks in a row isn't true. Especially since any feature they release, will be used by millions of people pretty quickly.
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming Apple doesn't give themselves special treatment in the App Store. They absolutely do (as you'd expect). Just pushing back on the notion that they wouldn't have documentation and all their legal stuff taken care of.
Good. Back in 2015-2016, I worked on an app that improved user's vision. Genuine science, publications in peer-reviewed journals (even Nature). But the whole category was a vast ocean of bullshit apps, and our product just sank in it, unable to differentiate itself and prove to the users that it was the real thing.