Temple is not made for India: Deepinder Goyal responds to criticism, clarifies wearable’s purpose

Zomato and Eternal founder Deepinder Goyal is again in the headlines for Temple wearable. In a latest X post, he said Temple wearable is not being designed for the Indian market and that only 1 per cent of Indians will buy it. In the post published on Diwali, Goyal addressed the growing criticism over Temple's pricing, scientific claims and intended use. This comes after several doctors, including hepatologist Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, popularly known as The Liver Doc, questioned whether the wearable can reliably measure blood flow to the brain. Philips had gone as far as calling it a health scam and wellness fraud.

Deepinder Goyal says Temple is built for a global market, not India

Addressing concerns about Temple's Rs 85,000 price tag, Goyal said the wearable was never intended to be an India-focused product. According to him, the company expects fewer than 1 pct of Temple devices to be sold in India, with the product being developed for a global audience.

He acknowledged that the price can seem high to some buyers but defended it by pointing to the work involved in developing the device. Goyal said the company had priced Temple based on what it believes the product is worth, while suggesting that potential customers should wait for reviews if they are unsure about its value.

He also asked people not to support Temple simply because it is an Indian startup. Instead, Goyal said he wants the product to compete internationally and attract buyers interested in supporting early-stage innovation.

Goyal says Temple is a fitness and AI device, not a medical product

One of the key points in Goyal's latest post was his insistence that Temple is not being marketed as a medical device. He said the wearable is intended for fitness tracking and AI-powered insights, and has not been designed to diagnose or prevent diseases.

“Temple is strictly a fitness + AI device, and we've made no medical claims,” Goyal wrote. He added that the device is not proven to diagnose or prevent any disease and does not replace the need to consult a doctor.

Goyal also argued that doctors may be viewing the company's statements through a medical lens, even though Temple is not intended to serve as a medical product. He maintained that the company would obtain regulatory clearances wherever they are required before making claims that need such approval.

The clarification comes amid questions about the wearable's ability to monitor cerebral blood flow. Critics have argued that the company needs to demonstrate that its sensors can measure blood flow within the brain rather than changes closer to the skin's surface.

Brain Flow is not the main feature, says Goyal

Goyal also sought to shift attention away from Brain Flow, the feature that has attracted much scientific criticism. He said that while Temple initially began with work on Brain Flow, it is not the central purpose of the wearable.

Instead, he identified Entropy as the primary metric behind Temple. The company has previously described Entropy as an indicator of how hard the body is working to shed heat. Goyal said the metric has been central to the product's positioning and that the company has not yet published its research on it.

He pointed out that earlier communications with people on Temple's waitlist focused on Entropy rather than Brain Flow. Goyal said the company plans to publish more information about how the metric works, but potential buyers can decide whether to purchase the wearable before that information becomes available.

Temple's scientific proof will come in stages

On the question of scientific validation, Goyal said people have different expectations when it comes to the level of evidence required before buying a new product. He outlined a progression from whitepapers to preprints and finally peer-reviewed research, adding that consumers are free to wait until the latter becomes available.

He also maintained that Temple's claims should not be judged through social media criticism alone. According to Goyal, the company will follow regulatory requirements in different markets and could face consequences if it makes claims that are not supported.

His latest comments follow an earlier defence in which he revealed that Temple's development had cost around $30 million, including $20 million from his personal funds. He had also cited the wearable's 14-day, no-questions-asked return policy as a reason customers could assess the product for themselves.

Goyal has now promised to publish a detailed explanation of how Temple calculates Brain Flow, what the metric can be used for and, importantly, what its limitations are. He said the note would be shared today.

Roomdeaf AI is an expansion, not a change in direction

Goyal also addressed questions around Roomdeaf AI. He called it as an expansion of Temple's capabilities rather than a shift in the product's original direction. While he did not provide further details in the post, the clarification suggests that we can expect AI to be a bigger part of the wearable's long-term vision.

For now, Temple remains a product with ambitious claims and unanswered questions. Goyal wants buyers to look beyond the current debate and judge the device as more research becomes available. However, with its Rs 85,000 price tag and questions over its Brain Flow measurements, the company will need to provide clear evidence of what the wearable can actually do.