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

211–220 of 357 posts

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

#211

Post by burnerthrow008 »

0x457 wrote: post #78
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't how can you patent "read sensor, and process readings on device" I get if how it's actual sensor was patented, not "read and compute"

My reading of the claims is that the novelty is having the processor integrated in the sensor protrusion. So processing the data elsewhere (particularly on a different device) would avoid infringement.

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

#212

Post by duskwuff »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #101
borski wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do it by using interstitial fluid, which is how CGMs work. But, in short, no, not yet: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/do...

They're all on a subscription model, you're spending who-knows-how-much per year on a new sensor every few days/weeks. Afraid it'd feel like a prickleburr stuck to me constantly.

> They're all on a subscription model, you're spending who-knows-how-much per year on a new sensor every few days/weeks.

Which - to be clear - is because the sensor chemically degrades over time. It's not just rent-seeking; they genuinely don't know how to make one that'll last longer.

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

#213

Post by Teever »

JustExAWS wrote: post #62
Teever wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is able to do what they do now because of the shit they got away with in the Jobs era. Because they hobbled competitors and innovation then they're able to do it now. It's really hard to determine how detrimental their actions have been to the job market for software engineers. It is entirely possible that every software engineer is worse off because Apple severely distorted the market and prevented many compet…

You mean they hobbled poor little competitors like Google, Adobe, and the other tech companies that agreed to it? Apple was actually one of the smaller companies at the time. How is all Apple’s fault? And are you really saying that the iPhone wouldn’t have happened if Apple hadn’t gotten into these agreements? In your alternate universe would Nokia or Rim (who wasn’t involved in the agreement) still been relevant?

No, they hobbled the competitors that their staff could have formed if they had made more money to do so.

That collusion between these big companies to deny their employees a wage driven by free markets allowed those companies to accrue wealth and prevent competition from forming.

That's terrible for their employees, that's terrible for the consumer.

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

#214

Post by meindnoch »

FireBeyond wrote: post #165
geodel wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If another company taking some of your employees will affect you company's bottom line, then you better pay those employees handsomely.

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

#215

Post by FirmwareBurner »

eddieroger wrote: post #170
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Look them up - this is big companies fighting, not David and Goliath.

Massimo is 400x smaller than Apple. WTF are you talking about like they're in the same weight class?

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

#216

Post by meindnoch »

adrr wrote: post #205
spogbiper wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, very good for the employees. Apple even offered them 2x their salaries to leave Masimo.

Masimo never paid well. $100k to $120k for a senior software engineer. 2x sounds good but probably brought them up to average bay area salaries.

Yikes. That's like the poverty line in Silicon Valley.

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

#217

Post by okrad »

ayhanfuat wrote: post #68
neild wrote: post #29

In my experience, the Apple Watch blood oxygen monitoring was horribly inaccurate. It would report wildly variable results, often telling me that I had a blood oxygen level of 80% (which, if true, would indicate that I should be getting myself to an emergency room ASAP). Regular pulse oxygen meters are cheap and reliable.

That caused me nightmares when I was first diagnosed with sleep apnea. I would check my oxygen levels during the sleep to see if my treatment is effective. Even though the CPAP machine would show a few short events Apple Watch would show levels as low as 75%. Thankfully in my next sleep study I learned that my oxygen levels were consistently above 95% and the watch is indeed very unreliable (how snug it is, which dir…

I’ve always felt the sport loops (soft w/ velcro) provide the best contact with wrist while not being too cumbersome. Very easy to tighten just before a workout or loosen before bed. All the while it stays planted on my wrist. Unlock the rubbery band it normally comes with, which is prone to sliding around and less easy to adjust.

Out of curiosity, which band do you use?

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

#218

Post by scarface_74 »

meindnoch wrote: post #214
FireBeyond wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If another company taking some of your employees will affect you company's bottom line, then you better pay those employees handsomely .

And by “pay” liquid cash or liquid equity in a publicly traded stock - not illiquid “equity” in a private company.

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

#219

Post by scarface_74 »

Teever wrote: post #213
JustExAWS wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean they hobbled poor little competitors like Google, Adobe, and the other tech companies that agreed to it? Apple was actually one of the smaller companies at the time. How is all Apple’s fault? And are you really saying that the iPhone wouldn’t have happened if Apple hadn’t gotten into these agreements? In your alternate universe would Nokia or Rim (who wasn’t involved in the agreement) still been relevant?

No, they hobbled the competitors that their staff could have formed if they had made more money to do so. That collusion between these big companies to deny their employees a wage driven by free markets allowed those companies to accrue wealth and prevent competition from forming. That's terrible for their employees, that's terrible for the consumer.

How did their collusion stop a new company from offering more money than the depressed wages that the collusion was causing?

Alternatively, if hypothetically without the collusion do you think the upper wage pressure would I have materially affected those companies bottom lines to not create the products that made them profitable?

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

#220

Post by dmitrygr »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #140
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as a company is turning a profit, they by definition can afford to be paying their employees better. As a company you can choose not to, but it also means you get to suffer the consequences, and lose the right to complain that your employees were "poached" when in reality it was simply a matter of you not paying them enough to stay.

There's no way Massimo could have competed in a salary race with Apple. Apple could have paid those employees MILLIONS if they wanted to.

Yes, this is capitalism. Apple get 1st rate engineers, Massimo gets 3rd. If they want 2nd, they pay more
Post reply on HN