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

311–320 of 357 posts

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

#311

Post by lan321 »

realityking wrote: post #307
lan321 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound like the bad part to me. If Masimo wanted to, they'd have offered them the same or more to keep them, but they didn't. I don't believe an employer has any right to expect other companies not to offer positions to their employees. Employees should not be kept in the dark on opportunities for better pay and conditions because you can't or don't want to fight that offer.

Absolutely. But if the new company pays them to just recreate the IP the developed in the previous company - now much faster because they‘ve done it before - that‘s an issue. And patents protect against that. That said, a patent whose primary claim seems to be (based on the workaround) _where_ the processing takes place (ant not _how_) seems like exactly the kinda thing that shouldn‘t be patentable.

Yeah, I haven't had the time to look over their patent, so I just wanted to touch on the poaching.

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

#312

Post by GuB-42 »

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?

Had Apple offered a good licensing deal to the company, it would have been good for the company too. Especially if said employees had stocks as part of their compensation package.

But it was cheaper to Apple to just hire a few key people and screwing over everyone else.

Good or bad depends on how Massimo compare to Apple. Which one of the two offers the most growth potential. If Apple just keep the employees long enough to steal the tech before laying the off, not building on it, then it is terrible for all but Apple shareholders. If Apple "saved" these employees from an exploitative company, providing the with growth potential and further development then it is a good thing.

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

#313

Post by hombre_fatal »

rafaelmn wrote: post #176
brandonb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FDA standard for blood oxygen sensing is within 6% absolute, 95% of the time. So variability in the sensing is pretty normal, and you want to look at long-term trends rather than individual measurements.

The problem with consumer health sensors is they have both high random error and inconsistent systematic error. When your SPO2 sensor gives you 92% one minute and 98% the next while you're sitting still and it is almost always 2% under, you're not getting "noisy but usable" data - you're getting garbage.

They should hide the live reading and give you daily / overnight insights.

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

#314

Post by gf000 »

mandeepj wrote: post #48
SJMG wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm out of the loop, can this be done without drawing blood now?

It’s been going on for a while - Non-invasive monitoring. Here’s a general link https://www.google.com/search?q=blood+glucose+patent+startup I believe a firm in Uk holds a patent for it and Apple has partnered with them a while ago. https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-takes-key-step-towards-b...

This is pretty much the holy grail, that would make the first person to crack it crazy rich.

So the quick answer is: no, not even close. Also, you would somehow have to measure a very low concentration of soluble chemical in a fluid with always changing composition of a bunch of chemically similar other constituents across relatively wide tissue layers that themselves have a lot of that same chemical..

It's absolutely sci-fi.

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

#316

Post by gf000 »

mrheosuper wrote: post #263

Interesting they offload the processing to iphone. The Soc on apple watch is quite capable. Maybe they don't want to drain your AW battery and prefer draining your iphone's instead.

AFAIK this is a legal loophole to avoid a patent. It used to work on the watch itself, but was disabled in the US due to said patent.

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

#317

Post by gf000 »

bookofjoe wrote: post #194
Havoc wrote: post #150

Been holding off buying a watch till glucose monitoring hits. Much like fusion that is continuously imminent though

Rumors have it that some form of BP monitoring will appear in next month's updated watches.

I would bet on nuclear fusion existing first..

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

#318

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

ggreer wrote: post #198
FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they started, they were producing for multiple small customers. Apple was frustrated with Motorola and approached them but demanded they massively increase their production capacity (Apple's model for dominating a supplier... put them in debt and beholden to them for orders) and effectively dominated them as a customer... Then used them to negotiate a better price with Motorola, dumped their purchase contract fo…

I can't find any articles about Exponential winning the lawsuit, only that they filed one and sought $500 million in damages. Had they won, I think it would have been in the press. The only thing I could find was Apple's 10K from 1999[1], which says they settled the lawsuit for an undisclosed amount: > This matter was settled during the fourth quarter of 1999 for an amount not material to the Company's financial posi…

I have not found the records online (a lawyer can probably find it) but I was involved with some of the people in 1997/1998. There were multiple lawsuits going for years as Apple held 5% ownership.

The original team ended up founding Intrinsity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsity) and being involed with the Samsung A8 and Apple A4 designs. Apple ended up buying the company and many of those people are the ones designing their current chips. (https://touchreviews.net/apple-intrinsity-implications/)

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

#319

Post by haswell »

wat10000 wrote: post #302
Hamuko wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’m not saying that the act of hiring people away from another company doesn’t happen. I’m saying that “poaching” is a horrible term for that action, because it implies that employees are property than can be stolen, rather than free persons who can be enticed to change employment.

> because it implies that employees are property than can be stolen

What makes you believe this? The definition of “poach” is not intrinsically linked to the notion of ownership/property.

The word has several definitions, one of which describes a method of preparing eggs (and others that clearly distinguish between things like illegally killing animals, hiring practices, etc).

It doesn’t make sense to me to take the definition that has nothing to do with employment and attach the weight/meaning of that unrelated definition to hiring practices.

Put another way, it would be silly to say “poaching is a horrible term to use for this because it implies that employees are eggs that can be cooked and eaten”. I find the consternation about hiring terminology here to be about the same.

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

#320

Post by 0x457 »

nradov wrote: post #102
0x457 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Have you read the patent?

Yes. Apple is working around that patent by moving computing to a different place. I don't think it's something that should be patentable.
Post reply on HN