Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 357 posts

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#161

Post by nucleardog »

skadamou wrote: post #57
jeffbee wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you already be super dead with a true reading of 80? Or at least unable to cognitively interpret the reading?

That's definitely a danger zone for healthy people but interestingly enough people with things like COPD may have a blood oxygen level in the 80s and while that is indicative of the disease, they may be totally stable and may not even need oxygen [1]. [1] https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/normal-oxygen-level-so...

Bodies are generally pretty amazing in that sense. As long as things go out of spec _slowly_, we will often adapt quite well. In the short term, we will tend to balance even fairly extreme changes out through various chemical processes and in the long term people can even develop heritable genetic changes. (E.g., how people acclimatize and have in some cases adapted to living at higher altitudes[0])

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_high_altitude_on_hu...

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#162

Post by FireBeyond »

thebruce87m wrote: post #14
spogbiper wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25 employees including the CTO, and then bought a building nearby to Masimo's office for them to work in. At least according to the CEO of Masimo in public statements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg

Sounds good for the employees, so go Apple?

Great for the employees. But Apple submarined their way in offering partnership, licensing, collaboration, with near zero plans to do any of it.

So good for the employees, but I wouldn't be applauding Apple for their outright deceptions here.

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#163

Post by FireBeyond »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #118
hbn wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget Masimo picked the fight. Apple was fine letting them compete.

Pardon? Masimo was first and Apple took their tech (as confirmed by a court). Was Masimo supposed to sit there and shrug?

Hah, plenty of people have described Masimo, 400 times smaller than Apple, in the threads on this as "bullying Apple unfairly by being a patent troll."

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#164

Post by ggreer »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #110
johnfn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there evidence of Apple doing this in the past?

Apple is infamous for driving other companies into bankruptcy to acquire their assets. For a single example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_Technology

How is that an example of Apple driving a company into bankruptcy to acquire their assets? Judging from the Wikipedia article, it looks like Exponential Technologies made a good PowerPC CPU, but Motorola promised they'd be able to catch up, and it's safer to bet on a big company that you've been doing business with than to rely on a startup for a critical component.

Licensed Mac clones were only available for two years (1995-1997), and discontinuing the program drove many other companies out of business, so it's hard to see how the change was a ploy to acquire a single company's assets. It seems more likely that Jobs discontinued licensing because it caused Apple to lose money.

And it looks like much of the Exponential Technologies team continued under a different name, then was bought by Apple in 2010 for $121 million.[1]

If there are other examples, can you provide one that is more recent and/or more blatant?

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/technology/28apple.html

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#165

Post by FireBeyond »

geodel wrote: post #100
scarface_74 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to what HNers are so happy to say about restaurant owners who actually have to be profitable and can’t depend on the largess of investors, if Masimo can’t afford to pay market rates to developers, the company doesn’t deserve to exist.

Right. Somehow people here are struggling on how to pin blame on Apple even when developers are better off with Apple's offer. It is a great outcome for anyone who is developer. If in their world view "best developer salary is not always the best thing" one could have better reasoning for supporting little guy Massimo getting crushed by Apple.

So if Apple came to your company, promising licensing, collaboration and other things, when all along their intention was to "take" "your" employees, you'd be cool with that deception?

The employees made out better - good for them. That's a lot easier to do when you have a market cap 400 times higher than that of the company you made all these promises to, and then left holding the bag.

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#166

Post by adrr »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #11
BallsInIt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software patents are a scourge.

I would be a bit more sympathetic if this was not about a trillion dollar company who poached some employees rather than engage in a licensing deal.

Why would they license something that was invented 50+ years ago? No one else pays a license for it. Not even valid patent as the company couldn't prove it court it was a valid patent and the case ended up being hung jury with all but one jury that held out. Only reason they couldn't import it because

Travesty is the ITC is allowed to block imports without going to court. Banning imports shouldn't be done by some government institution and should be handled by the court system.

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#167

Post by usefulcat »

yifanl wrote: post #128
lovich wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but as someone in the same boat. I wasn’t going to buy a device just for blood monitoring. What they produced is valuable to me as a feature of a product but not as a product in of itself

So we should allow apple to have monopoly power in every industry because otherwise it'd be annoying to buy separate devices.

Where did anyone claim that Apple ought to have a monopoly on blood oxygen measurement in a wearable electronic device, let alone "have monopoly power in every industry"?

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#168

Post by [deleted] »

yifanl wrote: post #121
mrcwinn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I couldn't reply down another level.) >How HN can support monopolization of markets and killing of [sic] competition is beyond me. That suggests HN is a monoculture of some sort of united front. It is not. Diversity of opinion is best for this community (and all communities). And, sorry, what competition was killed off here? I, as the consumer, was never considering Massimo for my blood oxygen measurement needs. I b…

Why were you never considering them for your blood oxygen measurement needs?

[deleted]

Re: Blood oxygen monitoring returning to Apple Watch in the US

#170

Post by eddieroger »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #137
eddieroger wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masimo does so much more than consumer-worn heart rate monitors and O2 sensors. They'll be fine as well.

They will be fine, but maybe they want to be FANG rich. You do not get there if the already big companies play by different rules and can out spend the minute you pose a threat.

They're already in most of the hospitals in America. There was one attached to my daughter's foot for 100+ days. I don't think they care about FAANG at all. They're not a software company. Look them up - this is big companies fighting, not David and Goliath.
Post reply on HN