Okay, so it’s my understanding that right now there is no way to have a smartwatch that both acts as a collector AND has the ability to “share” that data with external devices due to no Bluetooth capabilities (which is idiotic IMO).
So, even if we were to get Liam a smartwatch, it would really be a vanity item because there would still be no way to ONLY use the watch, correct? I know the Sony SW 2 is the only one that can act as a collector, but there would still be the requirement for him to have a phone with him that is also a collector and can share. Am I correct?
As we get closer to his school starting, we’re trying to take care of the many things that will be required and getting him a SW was on the list, but if it’s only a vanity item, we may just remove it because the point we had hoped it would serve (getting rid of the ability of lugging a phone/receiver around with him), would still be there.
I would personally not get him the watch until the teachers are unhappy with him looking at his phone. Unless of course someone gets their ■■■■ together and actually produces a watch that would both share with you and receive the signal.
Fun tangentially related story, I had a college professor who had a “no devices in class” policy. For a comp sci class, interestingly… but anyways. I typically wore my watch to her class for this reason, so I could keep an eye on my BG without whipping out my phone. Unfortunately, "dismiss"ing Dexcom alerts on the Apple Watch does not act as dismissing them on the phone, and the phone will keep going off if you don’t acknowledge it. For a while I tried to be sly if I needed to dismiss an alert but eventually she saw me with my phone out and marched over and took it away.
Then at my earliest opportunity (like 5 minutes later) I marched right back over to her and said “I’m diabetic and my glucose sensor talks to my phone” and she apologized profusely and returned it. Tried to say something along the lines of “I better not see you texting people on it though”
I definitely had the upper hand at that point though because really, what was she gonna do? Take it away again? Don’t think so (and she didn’t)
I guess a real point to take from this is that watches might not solve this issue fully (depending on the setup)
I would have had serious issues (as a parent) with that Professor and you better believe there’d be ■■■■ flying behind the scenes from mama and papa bear.
I mean realistically if I had told her about the situation at the beginning of the quarter when she told us about the policy she probably wouldn’t have ever taken it. I just didn’t do that because (at the time) I wasn’t wearing sensors 100% of the time, and also I was a timid freshman (that’s very different now, lol)
Based on recent comments from Dexcom CEO, it sounds like Dexcom may finally be moving forward with a revision to their Mobile App which will allow the Apple Watch to communicate directly with the Transmitter.
I would wait to see what that looks like and what those capabilities are. Optimistically perhaps they could have it by this Summer? Just a wild guess.
I always have this sense of dread when my watch prompts me for an update. Every time it does I get nervous that the update will allow my watch to go rogue and cut off my phone access.
Not real rational, but it has prevented me from updating multiple times.
No, this is not totally correct. Yes, you do need a paired phone with the watch, but the phone does not need to be with him. It can be anywhere. Data collected on the watch will be uploaded to it, as long as the phone is on, and both phone and the watch are connected to the internet. This means the watch should be connected to WiFi. Once data is on the phone, it can be shared with followers, nightscout, etc.
This is fascinating. And opens up some possibilities. But still the phone would need to be connected via Bluetooth with the patient’s transmitter, right? So are you saying in this case that @ClaudnDaye should be wearing the watch.
Sorry reading fast, cause I’m headed out the door. Apologies if I totally just hack-jobbed your thoughtful and detailed post.
yeah, I’m trying to understand what’s being said here myself. To me, the phone seems like it should still be required to be “in range” of the transmitter, but perhaps I just don’t understand…if this isn’t the case, then I’d love to understand more. “Keeping the phone at home” is our ultimate goal…so if @Trying is saying that is the case, cool!
No, the phone does not need to be in range since the watch will simply be communicating with it indirectly via Google Wear in the cloud. The watch needs to be connected to WiFi for this. Once the data is in the cloud, it gets sent to your paired phone, hence your phone needs to be connected to the internet. You won’t be communicating via Bluetooth in this scenario. Keep in mind, WiFi will use up the battery on your watch faster so you may need to charge it. I usually carry a small battery with me for this, and for my phone.
