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

231–240 of 357 posts

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

#231

Post by FireBeyond »

burnerthrow008 wrote: post #202
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.

Sincere question for you: Do you actually believe that your employees belong to you?

No. That's why I framed those words. They're not taken, and they're not yours.

I thought I was pretty clear that I felt the outcome for the employees was positive and that Apple's actions were actively deceptive. It was clear in the trial that Apple had zero intention of collaboration, licensing, or patent sharing and just used that as a pretense to "get in the room" and see who showed up on Masimo's side so they knew who to target with competing offers.

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

#232

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

adrr wrote: post #207
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They destroyed the founders company and stole their IP in the process though. Let’s not forget there’s actual victims in this story.

What did they steal? CEO destroyed his own company when he bought a bunch of highend speaker brands. WTF is a medical device company doing buying consumer audio companies?

That’s not for you to decide. It somebody is eating/smoking/drinking themselves to death, does that give you the right to murder them?

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

#233

Post by scarface_74 »

Teever wrote: post #228
scarface_74 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let me get this straight, if there wages would have been 30% more hypothetically they could have invested their own money (which few startup founders do) built phones or search engines that competed with Apple and Google? Something well funded companies like Microsoft and Facebook couldn’t do? But now are you also saying that Apple did the right thing when they paid Masimo’s employees more so now they can stimulat…

A charitable interpretation of what I have wrote is that if Apple had followed the law then they would have more competition and the market would be a healthier place that benefits software developers and consumers alike. Apple broke the law because they felt that it was in their best interest to the detriment of others and they will likely continue to do so if they feel it is in their best interest.

Why focus just on Apple instead of the other companies - Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay?

But since when have people making BigTech money been afraid to venture out on their own to found a startup and would 30% more (completely made up number) and that was probably tied up in RSUs and not cash really made a difference?

Shouldn’t the idea that these people were making less than market wages spur them to go to other companies besides those seven or venture off on their own?

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

#234

Post by arjie »

jeffbee wrote: post #46
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.

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

Obviously not. I did the experiment with a finger pulse ox and a Garmin device to check. You just hold your breath. My Apple watch was pretty good at it too. It's very uncomfortable and you'll get visual snow but I'm not dead, super or otherwise. Use your hand to clamp over your mouth and shut your nostrils if you want to try.

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

#235

Post by ayhanfuat »

okrad wrote: post #217
ayhanfuat wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I also switched to the sport one and I like it because I sweat a lot and use it while swimming and it dries quickly. But if I don’t wear it uncomfortably tight while sleeping it gets looser probably because I move a lot while sleeping. One thing I noticed is that the biggest drops in measured o2 levels happen while I wake up to go to the bathroom. Normally it only measures while your wrist is flat and the watch is facing up but it is probably not able to detect it that quickly.

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

#236

Post by hombre_fatal »

skybrian wrote: post #227
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

I bought a cheap pulse oximeter during the pandemic and what I learned is that when I’m feeling light-headed, blood oxygen is low. So I decided that my body’s built-in blood oximeter is probably good enough most of the time. It’s sort of like having your watch tell you whether you slept well or not. Didn’t you already know? If you think you slept well and your watch disagrees, are you going to trust its opinion over…

Even people with sleep apnea don't know they are waking up multiple times an hour all night. You really have no clue how you're sleeping until you put it to the test.

Also, I don't think most people are in a position where they feel like they have amazing sleep every night. Yeah, maybe those people have nothing to gain from gadgets kind of like a person at ideal weight doesn't gain anything from counting calories: but what about the rest of us?

My wrist device was critical in helping me realize how few hours I was sleeping despite being in bed with my eyes closed for 8 hours.

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

#237

Post by Teever »

scarface_74 wrote: post #233
Teever wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A charitable interpretation of what I have wrote is that if Apple had followed the law then they would have more competition and the market would be a healthier place that benefits software developers and consumers alike. Apple broke the law because they felt that it was in their best interest to the detriment of others and they will likely continue to do so if they feel it is in their best interest.

Why focus just on Apple instead of the other companies - Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, Lucasfilm and eBay? But since when have people making BigTech money been afraid to venture out on their own to found a startup and would 30% more (completely made up number) and that was probably tied up in RSUs and not cash really made a difference? Shouldn’t the idea that these people were making less than market wages spu…

Because this is a thread about apple and the other companies are implied with the word 'collusion.'

As to your other points these things are not a binary, they are a gradient with Apple and the companies they colluding with having an incremental effect on the market that accrues over time as they consolidate wealth and restrict competition and the innovation that comes from it.

It is difficult for people to find jobs at other companies that don't exist or that are floundering because apple and others have illegally restricted the flow of capital that would spur their creation.

It seems from your line of questioning that you don't consider the criminal collusion that Apple and others participated in to be detrimental to the software industry and consumers as a whole.

Is that a fair assessment of your opinion? Can you expand on your opinion regarding this matter?

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

#238

Post by Dylan16807 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #229
Dylan16807 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People really like the idea of "When you win, I get money, when you lose, you lose money". Explained like that they agree it's bad, It's not bad , it's a cost . You obviously wouldn't make a deal like that in isolation. You also wouldn't give someone a salary for nothing. But a cost like that can be worth paying just like a salary is worth paying. (Obviously you'd have limits on the numbers, just like salary is lim…

The salary is the cost. People think that profits should be distributed on top of salary. And frankly it already happens to a degree with bonuses. But there is this pervasive idea that any leftover profit is just money that should have gone to workers.

Most jobs have benefits on top of salary.

Distributing part of the profits would be a reasonable benefit.

There are hundreds of millions of profits here. Distributing even 10% of that to employees would be a tremendous amount of money. Even a lot less would have a big effect.

A 10% profit share makes plenty of sense. Yes, even while insulating employees from losses, it still makes sense. Owners need to be able to reap profit but they don't need to get all of it forever. Employees owning stock is not the only way profit sharing can work.

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

#239

Post by dwaite »

cogogo wrote: post #195

I have the first Ultra and just looked back at the data and they were never interrupted. It isn't included in the release either. Wonder what is different about it. Did apple arrive at a separate agreement for that device?

There was an import ban on Apple Watches that had the feature, and the import ban was lifted by disabling the feature on imported watches.

There wasn't a requirement that it be disabled on watches that had already been imported, or on watches that weren't being imported to the US.

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

#240

Post by ethansinjin »

cogogo wrote: post #195

I have the first Ultra and just looked back at the data and they were never interrupted. It isn't included in the release either. Wonder what is different about it. Did apple arrive at a separate agreement for that device?

If you have a watch that was imported into the US before the restriction went into effect, you never lost the (original, watch-only) Blood Oxygen functionality and this update doesn't affect you.

Up to mid-2024, Costco was selling 2 separate SKUs of Apple Watch Ultra 2: watches with the blood oxygen feature and watches imported after the cutoff which were missing the feature.

A limitation of this workaround is that it only works on recent watches. If you are in the unfortunate position of getting a Series 6, 7, 8 watch replaced by Apple, they'll give you a replacement with the feature missing, and this update doesn't "fix" it..

Post reply on HN