Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's a whole business to be made off that five second clip where they amplify the motion of the sleeping baby's chest.

Anybody who's ever been a parent can remember going up to check on the baby at night, standing over the crib for a full minute thinking "move! Move! MOVE!" at the lifeless body of their baby, running all the horror stories they've heard about cot death over and over in their head until finally the kid's chest moves enough to breathe a sigh of relief and go back to bed.

The first company that adds this feature to a video baby monitor will make a mint.



That business already exists, though the existing sensors typically come as a pressure-sensitive mat (placed under the mattress) instead of a camera.


A business preying off the fears of new parents, marvelous.


There's a bit difference between building a business that preys on the fears of a new parent and a business that acknowledges that new parents already have fears and tries to reduce them. This I would say falls firmly into the later category.

It's the difference between a tool which helps you make sure that your baby is ok and one which tries to persuade you that if you don't use it you're creating unconscionable risks to your baby which this product could save you from. The former is a tool which is good, the later is one which preys on parents.


Totally disagree. The two devices are one and the same.

Checking on your baby in the middle of the night because you woke with a sudden fear - normal parent anxiety, makes a funny story later.

Providing a device to allow constant electronic monitoring - validating an irrational fear, reinforces anxiety, feeds into an obsessive loop, invents issues for new parents just when they need to be calm and rational.


We clearly disagree on a fairly basic level.

I'm very much of the opinion that anything which causes peace of mind is good thing and teaches the parents that their fears aren't grounded in reality. I'd say that most the fears that new parents have are rational in the overarching sense (in that it's entirely rational for a parent to worry about about their baby's health whenever the baby seems to deviating from the expected), but new parents lack the knowledge to determine if any one particular event is something that constitues an actual emergency, or is perfectly normal. Babies commonly have minor health problems (such as colic or jaundice) when they're very young which don't require medical attention, but sometimes they do require attention and it can be hard to tell which is which since babies only have very limited ways to express that they're suffering. A tool which provides more information to the parents (like, say, being able to see that the baby's heart rate or respiration has dramatically changed and so they might not be crying as a result of colic, but because there's something else wrong) and let's them make a more informed decision is clearly of benefit and is by no means 'validating an irrational fear'.


Peace of mind is most often effected by turning the mind from obsessive loops. Selling expensive gadgets to nervous parents is way too tempting a profit center to be responsibly marketed. How about by prescription only? That would be a reasonable compromise. Ideally someone objective could be put into picture, to prevent abuse.


I wasn't aware we had good indicators for SID. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002533/

Lists some. Right after saying we don't know what causes it. The things listed are pretty generic, like smoking around a mother expecting, etc. But nothing a hundred percent. It's also the biggest cause of death in children under one year of age.

Not sure where you are getting that it's something not to worry about. I do wonder how many children you've had though.

Edit: Oh the point's made above were to beg the how would one get prescribed something that so far seems pretty random.


Oh, yeah, good point, attack me instead of the argument when you run out of things to say.

I have 3 kids. I trusted in fate to take care of things I had no control over, and was lucky they lived to be healthy confident adults.

I know of super-careful parents that raised precious children frightened of the world. That loses something too - like the purpose of living.

I know engineers want to solve everything with an engineering solution. That way leads madness. Next we'll be sticking monitors in the womb, because, you know, sometimes the foetus doesn't develop right and maybe we can do something about that too.


I'm sorry no. The expression of "preying on parents fears/anxiety as marketing a device" is not literal. It is about drumming up those fears at the time of the sale, not at the time fo the use. In short, if I make no claims about making the motivator of your fears go away, but I do make claims about helping you manage the fears themselves, that isn't preying on your fears and anxiety. I believe the technical term for that is "helping".

The obsessive loop is, "maybe my baby isn't breathing <-> check on baby <-> it's breathing <-> go back <-> maybe my baby isn't breathing". If you can go right from, "maybe my baby isn't breathing <-> of course not, this idiot box would tell me if he/she weren't" (and sure it's fair that that is far from certain), that's huge progress and it can deflate obsessive compulsive behaviour, anxiety and fear. It's the equivalent of giving a kid a stuff toy so they aren't scared in bed at night.


Haven't been a new parent, have you?

$5 for a suitable app is awfully cheap assurance. $50 for a dedicated device, ditto. We're not talking "taking advantage" here, we're talking something every parent in history wanted.


Does it provide actionable data? If not, we're just discussing the dollar amount by which panicky, obsessive parents should be screwed.

IMO a more likely outcome than preventing SIDS is a device malfunction leading to parental heart trouble and general distress.

Perhaps an analogue would be a device that illuminates a green light when there is not a (dreadful disease|nuclear strike|zombie horde) incoming...


Does it provide actionable data?

What part of "the child is, in fact, not breathing" isn't obviously actionable?

Seems you've never stared at a child in dim light, waiting for some sign of life, knowing everything is probably ok and you don't want to disturb the snowflake to find out, but know that there are nontrivial odds of spontaneous expiration and the consequence of further inaction may be dire. Cheap insurance, peace of mind, good profits in mitigating a fair concern.


I'm asking how this "not breathing indicator" could be used to improve outcomes. What does one do if it signals a problem--are parents going to be trained to perform CPR on their infants (and would that even help if done properly)?

Pandering to parents' fears about something they can do nothing to solve does not seem to me like a productive thing.


"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." - Babbage

Call 911. Do CPR (yes, some of us are trained). Get in the car and race the kid into the ER. Clear the airway. Solve the problem.

What, you're going to SIT THERE WHILE YOUR CHILD DIES???


I don't think it's very unhealthy for a parent to be obsessed with the health of their child.

To be honest, a soothing green light that indicates a bunch of dangers are not to worry about sounds pretty good to me too.

I think a device malfunction would at worst lead to a baby being forced awake by a worried parent to check everything is ok...


The worst case would be a soothing green light when things aren't ok.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: