I like and agree with your main point. For several years I have been facilitating a group within Avenidas Village that was focused on "Geriatric Healthcare", but we recently changed the name to "Healthy Aging" because many of the topics we explored had more to do with 'quality of life' issues rather than 'caring' issues. While I welcome the expansion of consumer technology into this area, I have a major concern about the user interface design of many of these products. My grandchildren seem to enjoy learning new technologies through trial-and-error and random exploration, but my fellow seniors are often intimidated by the complexity of these capabilities. I think there is still a need to augment consumer technology with age-appropriate user guides, tutorials, and even hands-on tech support aimed at the 'quality of life for older adults' market segment. Tech-Enhanced Life helps meet this ongoing need.
As the founder of Trelawear Inc, jewelry inspired wireless personal emergency response devices, I could not agree more with the need for consumer electronics companies to follow my lead of developing de-stigmatizing attractive discreet devices to the underserved 65+ audience who lead active independent lifestyles (& very often still maintain full time employment). This ever growing audience (11,000 people a day turn 65 in the US alone) should not only rely on an apple watch to serve their needs, but other creative devices that provide great tech and safety with style.
I'm 77 and partially disabled for the past 5 years. I wear a medical alert pendant and I do not feel "stigmatized" at all. I'm proud of it. It increases my self-confidence since I live alone and am very independent despite my disability. I have to "push the envelope" each day. I tried one of the fancy watches and abandoned it after a year because it was intrusive. It is exciting to see how technology can enhance my lifestyle but I want to do it on MY terms, please.
Totally agree with this way of differentiating the approaches! I am so grateful to be in good health and that allows my focus to shift to preserving or augmenting basic functions (e.g., when they may have changed with age)--balance, seeing, hearing, strength, mobility, use of my hands etc. But this could start at any age or, at the very least, be a focus of health care at a much earlier adult age (in anticipation of likely age-related changes in the body, changes that don't just start when one turns 65). I know there is a current trend in health care to focus more on disease prevention and wellness, in addition to treating illness when it does occur. I'd like to see more attention to preserving function! That'll require a quantum change in the way medicine is taught and practiced. Have you ever thought of consulting to health care systems? Sometimes it takes an "outsider" or consumer--someone who is not embedded in the health care system--to jump start different views in an established system. One example seen recently in the news, a man who comes from a background of being the sound engineer for a rock band--now an acoustics engineer--is developing innovative new approaches to augmenting/compensating for hearing loss from this kind of background instead of from the traditional framework of audiology /health care. Another is using voice-to-text technology to provide real-time closed-captions for conversation where hearing is difficult. They call this AR--Augmented Reality.
Very interesting discussion. As a mentor and advisor to several agetech startups, my experience is that we urgently need to find a better definition of what agetech stands for. Does anyone have an interest in a definition? And isn't every designation stigmatising the target audience? Perhaps.
But if we want to create an ecosystem around different stakeholders, then it is important of giving this a name. Primarily to indicate to investors exactly what it is about. Of course, the name is only the start, where it begins. But then the ‘game’ needs to be properly defined (what exactly is agetech's specific market). And of course, fame and exposure must follow - the 'fame'!
It's important to understand what "job/challenge/ aspiration" the technology is meant to solve. The technical embodiment should be the one that solves the problem best for the kinds of users who have the problem.
In the use case of "supporting healthy and active independence", that embodiment is more likely to be consumer tech than agetech/medtech devices that are stigmatizing. However, it's also important that the programming needs to be purpose built for that use case, not just the technical embodiment.
For example, an Apple Watch that tracks calories or heart rate or detects falls is not likely to solve the needs of older adults who want to understand their risk of cognitive decline or take steps to prevent falls or reduce risks.
I think part of this divide us based on the market...aged care support and aged care providers will pay for tech to support caring. Quality of life tech often takes a back seat. Maybe it speaks to ageism? The answer imo is to codesign with a diversity of older adults, from able to frail, and make solutions that suit. As a nearly 60 yo, my needs are quite different to my mother who is 85, yet we are often lumped together as a homogenous group.
I agree with your observations about the market for technology geared toward the needs of older people but would encourage you to challenge your own thinking even more. Those you describe as “frail and infirm” should not be relegated to the sole care of the medical system and its “age-tech” devices. They too desire full and engaged lives and are limited more by our inability to see them than they are by age and infirmity. In our desire as 50-, 60-, and 70-somethings to escape the denigrations of ageism, we risk reinforcing it by implying that it applies to “them” and not “us.” Let’s instead encourage technology developers to think in terms of universal design —what benefits those who are challenged by infirmity may very well benefit all who live with a disability or who live alone or want greater convenience. Ageism hurts all of us—literally takes years off our lives. Let’s fight stigma, not hand it off.
I like and agree with your main point. For several years I have been facilitating a group within Avenidas Village that was focused on "Geriatric Healthcare", but we recently changed the name to "Healthy Aging" because many of the topics we explored had more to do with 'quality of life' issues rather than 'caring' issues. While I welcome the expansion of consumer technology into this area, I have a major concern about the user interface design of many of these products. My grandchildren seem to enjoy learning new technologies through trial-and-error and random exploration, but my fellow seniors are often intimidated by the complexity of these capabilities. I think there is still a need to augment consumer technology with age-appropriate user guides, tutorials, and even hands-on tech support aimed at the 'quality of life for older adults' market segment. Tech-Enhanced Life helps meet this ongoing need.
I agree with the writer. I don’t want stigmatizing products Why can’t they make a walk in tub that doesn’t look like it escaped from the rehab center.
As the founder of Trelawear Inc, jewelry inspired wireless personal emergency response devices, I could not agree more with the need for consumer electronics companies to follow my lead of developing de-stigmatizing attractive discreet devices to the underserved 65+ audience who lead active independent lifestyles (& very often still maintain full time employment). This ever growing audience (11,000 people a day turn 65 in the US alone) should not only rely on an apple watch to serve their needs, but other creative devices that provide great tech and safety with style.
I'm 77 and partially disabled for the past 5 years. I wear a medical alert pendant and I do not feel "stigmatized" at all. I'm proud of it. It increases my self-confidence since I live alone and am very independent despite my disability. I have to "push the envelope" each day. I tried one of the fancy watches and abandoned it after a year because it was intrusive. It is exciting to see how technology can enhance my lifestyle but I want to do it on MY terms, please.
Totally agree with this way of differentiating the approaches! I am so grateful to be in good health and that allows my focus to shift to preserving or augmenting basic functions (e.g., when they may have changed with age)--balance, seeing, hearing, strength, mobility, use of my hands etc. But this could start at any age or, at the very least, be a focus of health care at a much earlier adult age (in anticipation of likely age-related changes in the body, changes that don't just start when one turns 65). I know there is a current trend in health care to focus more on disease prevention and wellness, in addition to treating illness when it does occur. I'd like to see more attention to preserving function! That'll require a quantum change in the way medicine is taught and practiced. Have you ever thought of consulting to health care systems? Sometimes it takes an "outsider" or consumer--someone who is not embedded in the health care system--to jump start different views in an established system. One example seen recently in the news, a man who comes from a background of being the sound engineer for a rock band--now an acoustics engineer--is developing innovative new approaches to augmenting/compensating for hearing loss from this kind of background instead of from the traditional framework of audiology /health care. Another is using voice-to-text technology to provide real-time closed-captions for conversation where hearing is difficult. They call this AR--Augmented Reality.
Very interesting discussion. As a mentor and advisor to several agetech startups, my experience is that we urgently need to find a better definition of what agetech stands for. Does anyone have an interest in a definition? And isn't every designation stigmatising the target audience? Perhaps.
But if we want to create an ecosystem around different stakeholders, then it is important of giving this a name. Primarily to indicate to investors exactly what it is about. Of course, the name is only the start, where it begins. But then the ‘game’ needs to be properly defined (what exactly is agetech's specific market). And of course, fame and exposure must follow - the 'fame'!
It's important to understand what "job/challenge/ aspiration" the technology is meant to solve. The technical embodiment should be the one that solves the problem best for the kinds of users who have the problem.
In the use case of "supporting healthy and active independence", that embodiment is more likely to be consumer tech than agetech/medtech devices that are stigmatizing. However, it's also important that the programming needs to be purpose built for that use case, not just the technical embodiment.
For example, an Apple Watch that tracks calories or heart rate or detects falls is not likely to solve the needs of older adults who want to understand their risk of cognitive decline or take steps to prevent falls or reduce risks.
I think part of this divide us based on the market...aged care support and aged care providers will pay for tech to support caring. Quality of life tech often takes a back seat. Maybe it speaks to ageism? The answer imo is to codesign with a diversity of older adults, from able to frail, and make solutions that suit. As a nearly 60 yo, my needs are quite different to my mother who is 85, yet we are often lumped together as a homogenous group.
I agree with your observations about the market for technology geared toward the needs of older people but would encourage you to challenge your own thinking even more. Those you describe as “frail and infirm” should not be relegated to the sole care of the medical system and its “age-tech” devices. They too desire full and engaged lives and are limited more by our inability to see them than they are by age and infirmity. In our desire as 50-, 60-, and 70-somethings to escape the denigrations of ageism, we risk reinforcing it by implying that it applies to “them” and not “us.” Let’s instead encourage technology developers to think in terms of universal design —what benefits those who are challenged by infirmity may very well benefit all who live with a disability or who live alone or want greater convenience. Ageism hurts all of us—literally takes years off our lives. Let’s fight stigma, not hand it off.