Really hate being the purveyor of bad news but I keep seeing people rant about a lack of Mac support.. the problem is the FDA requires pretty close to separate approval for each platform as if it were a new device
Its also partially why the software that is available doesn't get changed much or updated often
Its just not cost effective to have multiple platforms for download software.
Do see some changed with the FDA being paved by companies such as Glooko and Agamatrix but its still going to be awhile before we see a lot of multiplatform apps being approved quickly...
There isn't even fully fixed software, and some of it doesn't even support Windows 7 yet... So untill then....
Try Parellels, VirtualBox, VMware and Boot Camp on a Mac...
In the current FDA climate, it makes the most sense for companies to develop apps for the largest targets... Surprisingly Macs are not a large enough target audience, but ipods/iphones ARE... though Apple went and changed to the lightning connector causing a lot of potential devices to have to go back to the drawing board.. FDA does not like approving devices that need an adapter... technically that *breaks* the previous approval.. and technically the device has to be re-approved WITH the adapter used...
As a Mac convert (and loving it), I cannot agree more with you. When 5-10% of machines out there are Macs, and there are alternatives to using Windows on it, it becomes a business decision for the creators of the software.
On the testing front, I'm also looking at using Crossover, as it lets you run PC/Windows stuff in a window, without having to buy a copy of Windows.
It'll be over Christmas, and I'll let all y'all know.
OK, I checked... 10-15% of machines are Macs.
If Crossover works id be very interested.. Heres the kicker.. Vendors cannot legally recommend virtualized machines (FDA again, its akin to offlabel prescribing)... but anecdotaly many try to make sure they do work... Have had very good luck with VirtualBox and diabetes apps... and Boot Camp. But wish more diabetes devices used FTDI based serial solutions which are smarter about not taking up unnecessary com ports.. and duplicate phantom com ports that cause issues..
Thanks for this. I was wondering, because porting programs like these is at this point trivial from a technical standpoint.
On the face of it, it would seem to make more sense for these programs to be browser-based: one cross-platform interface, server-side control of accumulated data. But there are presumably all sorts of HIPAA issues with having encrypted medical data transfer "on the internet" >eyeroll< that inhibits this solution as well. FDA needs to get sufficiently IT-savvy so as to provide reasonable flexibility, because medicine's going in this direction generally; no stopping it.
Definitely not trivial! But I agree with you on the FDA front.
Perhaps trivial is too strong a word. ;) But surely not a back-breaking moneypit? I would have assumed (perhaps wrongly) that something like Dexcom's statistics software is written at a high level, such that porting is mostly a matter of changing out some APIs & debugging for a week.
I like the idea of a browser based/cloud solution but unless you add wifi to the receiver you'd still need a USB cable to download the data from the device in order to get the data to a server. That would then require at least some local software unless they could also mount the device as a drive the way digital cameras do.
Its not the actual porting thats expensive. its getting it re-approved through the FDA. Not saying portability is cheap, but thats not the main problem.. Its handing the FDA a check as if it were a new device thats the hard part.
This is why I'm in favor of web-based reporting. Check my profile if interested.
You still have the problem of approval.. Medtronic has this issue with Carelink.. It only technically works with an approved browser, with an approved version of java, with an approved shim/plugin to do the data exchange.. And thats not getting into the HIPAA issues.. I do know there is some headway on this. but just by going to a web based reporting system, your not going to bypass this with a CGMS...unless the user enters all data manually.. thats what a lot of IOS apps do to allow for charting in the US
My issue is not MAC approvals - just that the G4 USB interface does not work with a MAC running windows 7. Where the 7 Plus appears to work. Why wouldn't Dexcom fix this. Sadly I cannot get an answer from Dexcom as I'm based in the UK and they will not deal with me. Can anyone registered with them in the US ask ?
Ill see if i can talk to someone but technically their answer has to be.. We do not support the Mac... its not FDA approved to run under a virtual computer... That said. it doesn't mean they might not fix it.. but they cant tell you... From a technical point of view.. im wondering if you need a different serial to USB driver to make it work..