I had a similar thought. Less about the regulation, more about liability.
If I'm deaf and I pay for an app to tell me when an alarm is sounding, I have a certain expectation that it has been rigorously tested and will work without fail. And I'm a software engineer who understands the limitations and failure modes of such applications on non-real-time, commodity kit.
Please be extra careful about how you market this. I absolutely applaud your ingenuity, but I'd feel differently if I found out my elderly, hard of hearing gran was relying on any app on her smartphone to wake her if she left the stove on and went to bed.
I expect a proportion of your customers may be less technical users (or well-meaning relatives) with little understanding of the limitations and risks.
However, it is indeed an interesting idea. There may already be something on the market, but what about developing it into a physical device running on dedicated hardware? Crowd-fund an "alerter badge" or pin or whatever, and budget heavily for testing & verification. You could be onto a winner.
EDIT: Please don't be put off altogether by the comments. It's simply that non-real-time, non-failsafe smartphones aren't built for life-critical applications like this. The idea isn't a bad one - you're just targeting the wrong platform.
This. There's a reason there are regulations for this sort of product–people need to be able to rely on life-saving devices completely and with 100% certainty.
At the very least, I'd suggest researching brudgers' post and adding a notice that the ADA requires accommodation visual alarms.
edit: You really can't add enough disclaimers to something like this. The last thing you want to do is leave someone thinking this is going to save their life. Maybe as a tertiary failsafe, but you can't guarantee that's how it's being used.
Thanks for the great comment. It's rigged to err on the false positive side, to be safe. I didn't expect this sort of interest, honestly, so I'll probably need to improve the app and make it as safe as possible if I find that people are actually using it.
If I'm deaf and I pay for an app to tell me when an alarm is sounding, I have a certain expectation that it has been rigorously tested and will work without fail. And I'm a software engineer who understands the limitations and failure modes of such applications on non-real-time, commodity kit.
Please be extra careful about how you market this. I absolutely applaud your ingenuity, but I'd feel differently if I found out my elderly, hard of hearing gran was relying on any app on her smartphone to wake her if she left the stove on and went to bed.
I expect a proportion of your customers may be less technical users (or well-meaning relatives) with little understanding of the limitations and risks.
However, it is indeed an interesting idea. There may already be something on the market, but what about developing it into a physical device running on dedicated hardware? Crowd-fund an "alerter badge" or pin or whatever, and budget heavily for testing & verification. You could be onto a winner.
EDIT: Please don't be put off altogether by the comments. It's simply that non-real-time, non-failsafe smartphones aren't built for life-critical applications like this. The idea isn't a bad one - you're just targeting the wrong platform.