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

291–300 of 357 posts

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

#291

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

Hamuko wrote: post #288
wat10000 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees are not game. They cannot be “poached.” That phrasing implies that they are property of the company that employs them. What you call “poaching” is just giving an offer to a person, and that person accepting the offer of their own free will. The idea that this is bad is absurd, and only serves to hurt regular people in favor of companies.

> Employees are not game. They cannot be “poached.” Didn't Apple settle an anti-poaching lawsuit?

Yup, along with other companies. It was a "no cold call" agreement, or I guess antipoaching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

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

#292

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

wat10000 wrote: post #275
brewdad wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better hope that Apple pays you really well for your sevices. In six months they won't need you anymore and your former employer will have been sure to burn all the bridges you thought were left. I mean, get that money, but don't expect that you can make a career out of being poached repeatedly. If you're really that good, you probably could have done better working for yourself.

Regardless of whether it’s a bad idea, it’s a free choice of the person accepting or rejecting the offer. Describing it as “poaching” denies their agency and portrays employees as property of their employer.

If employees have agency, why do they have so little collective control over employment trends?

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

#293

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

schiffern wrote: post #272
throwawayxcmz wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple wants to copy your IP, and you're in consumer electronics, you don't have a moat. You're done.

That's a problem, even if it only has the perception of being true. Tomorrow's innovations in consumer electronics won't get funding as investors balk at the risk of getting Massimo'd .

It's not unheard of for developers to refuse to turn good ideas into startups for exactly this reason.

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

#294

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

snitty wrote: post #230
usefulcat wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

>monopoly on blood oxygen measurement in a wearable electronic device And I know this isn't your argument, but that's a VERY narrow market for the purposes of a US inquiry into monopolies. Like, the normal market definition fights are about whether you should be considering "premium smartphones" or "smartphones" as a whole. Or all of the grocery stores in a given region, and whether that should include convenience st…

The definition of a monopoly is that it can engage in monopolistic practices. Poaching IP to destroy a small company is very much a monopolistic practice, and has a chilling effect on the rest of the market.

Of course in Apple's case this Masimo story is not the only monopolistic practice.

The correct analogy would be a watch market dominated by Casio and Swatch with no independent smaller brands.

Because every smaller brand that becomes somewhat successful is bought out by the Big Two. Or never gets that far because new IP somehow ends up being the sole property of the Big Two through various other means.

(Technically an oligopoly, but still maintained by monopolistic lock-ins and actions.)

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

#295

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

aikinai wrote: post #284
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving a pass to trillion dollars companies for them to just come next to something they are interested in, poach employees, steal IP and not give a dim to actual innovators sure will be a great incentive towards companies doing more R&D.

Wait, who are the "actual innovators" if not the valuable employees Apple hired?

And I’m sure they did this out of the kindness of their hearts, while not being paid and with equipment they purchased themselves and stored in their garage.

Abuse of the patent system can be deeply problematic. This is not one of them. This is one of the richest company in the world stealing the work paid by another.

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

#296

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

wat10000 wrote: post #275
brewdad wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better hope that Apple pays you really well for your sevices. In six months they won't need you anymore and your former employer will have been sure to burn all the bridges you thought were left. I mean, get that money, but don't expect that you can make a career out of being poached repeatedly. If you're really that good, you probably could have done better working for yourself.

Regardless of whether it’s a bad idea, it’s a free choice of the person accepting or rejecting the offer. Describing it as “poaching” denies their agency and portrays employees as property of their employer.

That’s not what poaching means. Poaching describes the comportement of one company towards another. Employees are entirely accessory to what is being described here.

What’s meaningful is that Apple was hiring them because of the work they did for Massimo and doing so en masse at a single point of time.

If they had just hired experts on blood monitoring to staff a team and some of them happened to be working for Massimo before, it would just be hiring as usual and not described as poaching.

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

#298

Post by nailer »

aikinai wrote: post #284
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving a pass to trillion dollars companies for them to just come next to something they are interested in, poach employees, steal IP and not give a dim to actual innovators sure will be a great incentive towards companies doing more R&D.

Wait, who are the "actual innovators" if not the valuable employees Apple hired?

The company that employed them to make those innovations.

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

#299

Post by chevill »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #285
hombre_fatal wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: bu…

And what did you do with that information?

There are lots of ways it can help. Finding out you wake up an abnormal amount of times could be a sign of sleep apnea or something else. One could take that information and get a sleep study.

These apps can detect that you are moving around a lot and also detect that you are snoring (another sign of sleep apnea).

Even if you know that you snore without using a sleeping app, that doesn't really give you a picture of how bad it could be. I apparently stop breathing and sometimes start choking in my sleep.

Now that I have a diagnosis of sleep apnea sleep apps are still really helpful. If I'm still snoring, it means I probably need to adjust the pressure on my CPAP machine. If the app for my CPAP machine tells me that I'm having a lot of episodes over the course of the night, I might need to adjust the pressure or the fit of the mask.

sleep apps have probably literally saved lives.

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

#300

Post by wat10000 »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #296
wat10000 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of whether it’s a bad idea, it’s a free choice of the person accepting or rejecting the offer. Describing it as “poaching” denies their agency and portrays employees as property of their employer.

That’s not what poaching means. Poaching describes the comportement of one company towards another. Employees are entirely accessory to what is being described here. What’s meaningful is that Apple was hiring them because of the work they did for Massimo and doing so en masse at a single point of time. If they had just hired experts on blood monitoring to staff a team and some of them happened to be working for Massi…

What’s wrong with that? Those employees took the offer of their own volition. There’s nothing wrong with offering someone a job because of their relevant experience.

“Employees are entirely accessory” is exactly the shit I’m arguing against here. The whole idea of “poaching” implies that the employees are property, to be guarded by their owners and stolen by others. How can the people who actually do the work and are the entire reason for this so-called “poaching” not be central to it?

Post reply on HN