7 ms·
Apple Must Stop Selling Watches with Blood Oxygen Feature
- mitchbob 3y agohttps://archive.ph/2024.01.17-195607/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-17/apple-must-stop-selling-watches-with-blood-oxygen-feature https://archive.ph/2024.01.17-195607/https://www.bloomberg.c...
- johnea 3y agoMaybe they can just follow the advice given to asian auto makers: make your product weight 8000lbs and cost $75,000 and we'll let you import it...
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoMore like Apple must stop stealing other companys' IP and selling it as their own.
- HAMSHAMA 3y agoMy Garmin watch has a pulse oxygen readout. I wonder if the same patent applies...
- pxeboot 3y agoIt was mentioned in a previous thread that Garmin uses a different method.
- Hippocrates 3y agoThere are apparently different methods. Apple Watch 3-5 created vo2 max data without a pulse oximeter.
- nradov 3y agoGarmin watches don't use the blood oxygen sensor for estimating VO2 Max.
- brian-armstrong 3y agoArticle says they will patch it out in software. Wonder if this means existing watches will also have it patched out?
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoMost likely existing ones will be silently patched out as well. They did the same with the noise cancelling feature on their AirPods where it suddenly got worse after one silent update due to a patent litigation. It's one of the reason why I'm not buying Apple products, I don't want the manufacturer silently nerfing my purchased property without my consent and me having no control over it. With other manufactures updates are usually triggered manually, not "automagically".
- gnicholas 3y agoMy reading of the article is different, though it's not terribly clear: > Apple has developed a software workaround to the ban that eliminates the function from its devices. Last week, the US Customs and Border Protection agency approved redesigned versions of the watches that didn’t have the oxygen reader. Why would Customs need to approve a redesigned version that doesn't have the oxygen reader if this was a change in software only? It seems that the first sentence may not be directly related to the second. Yes, Apple can develop a software workaround to remove this feature from being accessible. This is obviously true. I believe they tried to do this in order to be able to import the already-produced devices despite the ban. But Customs might say that this wouldn't satisfy the ITC ban because the actual sensor, which is the patented item in question, is still included in the watch — even if the user can't access it in any way. This would explain why they then sought approval for a new device that does not have the sensor.
- lnxg33k1 3y agoIt could be fair to force them recall the watches if they remove the blood oxygen feature, people might have bought the watch with a set of functions, and removing them should invalidate
- rootusrootus 3y agoThis is an import ban, it should have no effect on already imported watches.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- granzymes 3y agoAnd, in addition, there is a limited exception to the import ban for the purpose of replacing/repairing existing devices. People who bought the watches before tomorrow (or whenever imported supplies run out) are not affected.
- gnicholas 3y agoSome of the news coverage I saw a few weeks ago said that this is true for in-warranty repairs, but not out-of-warranty repairs. Obviously this wouldn't apply to any newly-purchased devices, which have a 1-year warranty. But it could affect owners of Series 8 watches, for example, if they haven't bought AppleCare (which extends the warranty past 1 year.
- granzymes 3y agoYep, only in-warranty repairs (including AppleCare). If your device is out of warranty and the "repair" actually means a full replacement then you aren't getting a replacement with blood oxygen enabled.
- s5300 3y agoI hope the suffering patients these kind of tech wearables earnestly improve the lives of don’t get impacted too much. Blood Ox probably isn’t the biggest deal, but accurate vitals wearables are extremely valuable in managing & making doctors unable to deny the reality of quite a few conditions they may otherwise be inclined to say you’re exaggerating. I was personally waiting for some of Withings (Nokia folk IIRC) offerings to get approved by the FDA for quite some time… last I checked they never did and I mostly use apple now.
- bryan_w 3y agoBig win for the little guy. Apple needs to pay the people what they're owed.
- EA-3167 3y agoI mean... anything is smaller than Apple, but Masimo pulled in well over a billion revenue last year. They are not the little guy. Their patents for the O2 sensor are also incredibly general. https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10912502B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoWho cares what the size of the "little guys" is? The size is not the point. The point is Apple stole(again) from someone, now they have to pay. Breaking the law isn't when the offended party is only children, grandmas and puppies instead of other corporations. Next time they should try the legal way of doing business, like paying to license IP like everyone else. Stealing is bad m'kay.
- bigfudge 3y agoI'm not accusing you personally of hypocrisy, but I do find it amusing the patents are almost never ok on HN except when they're being violated by Apple.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoIt's difficult to be objective when you gave thousands of dollars to that corporation in product purchases or stonks or have an inexplicable emotional attachment to their products. You now have skin in the game. Hence the Apple defense mob on HN.
- ryanobjc 3y agoThe o2 sensor on the apple watch is a net win for the wider society. And never forget: patents exist to benefit society as a whole. Not particular companies.
- AdmiralAsshat 3y agoI wonder if older watches with the feature still enabled will start commanding a higher price in the used market.
- mattbrewsbytes 3y agoIts a hardly used feature for me. I doubt its a feature that was a deciding factor for the majority of people.
- bpye 3y agoIs Apple going to keep this feature in watches sold elsewhere and just disable it in the US? I know other features like ECG are restricted based on your location as well…
- gnicholas 3y agoI believe that the ECG feature is just not enabled in software for certain regions. The hardware required is still in the watches themselves. This means that Apple can make one version of each and sell them all worldwide. On the other hand, it appears that Customs is not content with a software-only fix, based on the reporting here and previously. IIRC Apple had offered up a software fix, and seems to have been rebuffed. That's why they're now getting approval for a different device, which has the hardware removed.
- blackhaj7 3y agoIt is still being advertised as a feature on the Ultra 2 - https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-ultra-2/ https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-ultra-2/ I recently bought one and this was one of the features that drew me to it. I wander if I can ask for my money back if they remove the feature?
- gnicholas 3y agoI have followed this case fairly carefully (IAAL) and have not seen any indication that Apple will remove the feature from any already-sold Apple Watches. The only way you may be impacted is that if you require a post-warranty repair, Apple may not be able to provide you the same device. This would only apply if Apple loses its ITC appeal. There are also district court cases ongoing, but those will take longer and there are not yet any rumblings about whether they could affect existing devices. My guess is they would just require Apple to pay for the past infringement, not to remove the feature from already-sold devices.
- kweingar 3y agoIf blood oxygen is disabled in a software update, will there be any recourse for Apple Watch owners? Customers aren’t the ones who violated a patent, and yet they’re the ones who might get screwed. The burden should be on Apple to figure this out for their customers.
- burnte 3y agoApple could always pay to use the patented IP. I could barely type that with a straight face. They'll never do that after being sued.
- fritzo 3y agoHonest question: why not? Would that set a precedent and invite a deluge of lawsuits from every direction?
- burnte 3y agoNo, it's just that Apple has a history of cutting off companies permanently. Once they decide not to do business with you, you're done and they'll do what they have to in order to avoid using you. In this case, I wager they'd rather engineer around this patent holder than pay them since they took the risk of going to production without licensing the patent.
- gnicholas 3y agoThe current ITC action would not result in this. The ITC only affects importation into the US.
- dandesim 3y agoApple does JIT assembly, so it would be relatively 'easy' to release a new/factory OS version that has this feature disabled. Take the marketing of this feature down, or mark it as in development, and should be okay? I don't know why they haven't just done the simple solution yet and are instead fighting this in court, continuing to lose sales, for a feature .1% of people will use?
- hx8 3y agoThis has so many negative externalities, and the only party really benefiting is Masimo. I understand Apple broke the law, but this ruling is only bad for the public. * Apple Watches improve public health. Stepcounters, heart rate monitors, fall detection, etc etc. It's a tragedy that less of these were put out into the public, especially around Christmas/New Years. * The Blood Oxygen technology has a much larger impact on the general public when it's in a widely distributed device like the Apple Watch. Access to the technology will be lower with Masimo. * The quantified self is becoming more and more of a reality. The long term vision -- of having a better image of your health -- is something we should be sprinting towards. This is hurdle.
- Moldoteck 3y agoIn this case apple maybe should, you know, pay for this to be included?
- kube-system 3y agoApple can afford to license the technology. They shouldn't be allowed to skip that step just because they have a lot of lawyers. If we let Apple to continue doing this, it makes it harder for other companies to start selling the same kind of devices too, because they're at a disadvantage when they do follow the law.
- dageshi 3y agoThe only people to blame for this are Apple and their arrogance?
- TaupeRanger 3y ago> Apple Watches improve public health Please post the randomized controlled trial that shows that people with Apple Watches live longer and/or with better quality of life than those without. You won't find one, and it's not as black-and-white as one might think due to iatrogenic harms and the nocebo effect: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-15/wrist-size-fitness-gadgets-make-for-great-gifts-but-beware-of-the-nocebo-effect?embedded-checkout=true https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-15/wrist-... You are making evidence-free claims.
- deleted 3y ago
- leeeeeepw 3y agoSurprised how many people support patents at the cost of our health.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]