31–40 of 78 posts
What is even the point of measuring this at all times????
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And nothing in Apple's advertising or product info suggested this. I also don't think I saw anything describing this in the ToS or EULA. The least they could do is be upfront about this.
Do you feel they should have a disclaimer about it being harder to take picture of dark skinned people in many settings with their cameras as well? Did you actually read the ToS or EULA?
Companies get sued by random people for stuff like this all the time, I don't think there's anything here that indicates this is particularly newsworthy or exceptional. This is the same class-action lawyer who sued Kellogs for not putting enough strawberry ingredients into their strawberry poptarts: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/30/1050175655/strawberry-pop-tar... . Apparently (according to that NPR article) he files ~…
The complaint is also available at https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.nysd.591590 - the pdf is https://ia601507.us.archive.org/26/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.5... The initial part of the complaint: 1. Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”) manufactures, markets, and sells the Apple Watch, purporting to measure the oxygen level of a wearer’s blood directly from their wrist (“Product”). 2. The interest in blood oxygen levels exte…
Racism requires intent. Even if they KNEW of the discrepancy, they have to optimize towards something. Did Apple do this because they dont like black people? Going to be hard to prove that but it wouldn't be surprising if the plaintiffs gets a payout none-the-less.
They aren't charged with “racism”, which, incidentally, also isn't, per se, illegal. So even if that was true of racism, it isn't relevant.
They are charged with fraud under various laws, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment, some of which require intent, but not the intent you describe (racial animus).
/armchair internet lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you feel they should have a disclaimer about it being harder to take picture of dark skinned people in many settings with their cameras as well? Did you actually read the ToS or EULA?
There are slightly different rules for health devices than for leisure ones. If the problem is real, then it seems reasonable to me for Apple (and everyone else, just to be clear) to be made to amend their printed materials to properly disclose well-known-to-Apple problems with oximetry in darker skin. Again, if the problem is real, then they guy deserves a refund, fees covered, maybe a small token for the effort, an…
Isn't this a bigger problem involving all pulse oximeters? It was at least two years ago that I first heard that the darker you are, the more likely you will get a false high reading on one.
This is largely about how Apple Watch pulse oximetry feature was marketed vs. how pulse oximetry actually works, so, without taking a position on the merits of the suit, it is quite possible for Apple to legitimately be in the wrong here and other sellers of pilse oximeters not to be, even if Apple Watch pulse oximetry works exactly like pulse oximetry generally.
All photography and lighting equipment is racially biased.
Here's a link to something in the same vein https://www.wired.com/story/can-apples-iphone-x-beat-facial-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And nothing in Apple's advertising or product info suggested this. I also don't think I saw anything describing this in the ToS or EULA. The least they could do is be upfront about this.
Do you feel they should have a disclaimer about it being harder to take picture of dark skinned people in many settings with their cameras as well? Did you actually read the ToS or EULA?
To be clear, I don't think it'd be acceptable for this to be hidden in the Terms either way.
And no, that's not really equivalent either. And the drawback becomes immediately evident to almost anyone taking photos, since they have their own eyes to compare to.
Also, did they sue Garmin and Fitbit similarly? If not, it's kind of a self confessed money grab attempt in full daylight.