3 ms·

This is such a ridiculously wide divide that I'm surprised Apple hasn't used this, or something similar to this, as a marketing tactic. Imagine being able to sa

This is such a ridiculously wide divide that I'm surprised Apple hasn't used this, or something similar to this, as a marketing tactic. Imagine being able to say your medical insights are 70 percentage points more accurate than your competitors. I do understand this is apples to oranges, since these are often devices in a completely different price range, but still. I was surprised to hear this and I have been loosely following the medical wearables space for awhile.

willis936 2y ago
I would imagine would be quite happy saying as little as possible about their sensors in their watches. It seems like their largest surface area for licensing litigation. Touting performance today is fuel in court tomorrow. https://time.com/6692718/apple-watch-masimo-alivecor-patent-antitrust-legal-explainer/ https://time.com/6692718/apple-watch-masimo-alivecor-patent-...
drilbo 2y ago
I believe there are non-Apple devices that use this approach as well, but they're certainly failing in making that information easy to find. That being said, being the only watch with FDA blessing is a pretty effective point to market https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/
- Kbelicius 2y ago
  There are a number of watches that were given a blessing, as you put it, by the FDA. Pixel, Samsung, Garmin, Withings...
  - cabidaher 2y ago
    Where can one find a list of those watches/manufacturers?
  - drilbo 2y ago
    Apologizes, you're correct. I vaguely remember reading they were "first" to get FDA approval for some feature, but if that were ever true, it is sorely outdated information. I fell for the hype, it seems. Unfortunate that I can't delete or edit the post at this point.
hansvm 2y ago
I mean, they'll definitely market it as 4.5x more accurate. Or, for nice round numbers, 5x -- and while we're within orders of magnitude it's not unreasonable to say "up to 10x more accurate."

willis936 2y ago

I would imagine would be quite happy saying as little as possible about their sensors in their watches. It seems like their largest surface area for licensing litigation. Touting performance today is fuel in court tomorrow. https://time.com/6692718/apple-watch-masimo-alivecor-patent-antitrust-legal-explainer/ https://time.com/6692718/apple-watch-masimo-alivecor-patent-...

drilbo 2y ago

I believe there are non-Apple devices that use this approach as well, but they're certainly failing in making that information easy to find. That being said, being the only watch with FDA blessing is a pretty effective point to market https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/ https://www.apple.com/healthcare/apple-watch/

Kbelicius 2y ago
There are a number of watches that were given a blessing, as you put it, by the FDA. Pixel, Samsung, Garmin, Withings...
- cabidaher 2y ago
  Where can one find a list of those watches/manufacturers?
- drilbo 2y ago
  Apologizes, you're correct. I vaguely remember reading they were "first" to get FDA approval for some feature, but if that were ever true, it is sorely outdated information. I fell for the hype, it seems. Unfortunate that I can't delete or edit the post at this point.

hansvm 2y ago

I mean, they'll definitely market it as 4.5x more accurate. Or, for nice round numbers, 5x -- and while we're within orders of magnitude it's not unreasonable to say "up to 10x more accurate."