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

331–340 of 357 posts

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

#331

Post by bookofjoe »

jajuuka wrote: post #329
bkirz wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but only for setup. The previous implementation would work if you went on a walk without your phone.

I don't see why that's a problem. They can still record the data on the watch and then when it reconnects to the phone it can send over the data for the analysis. Same as how they store metrics on the watch until it reconnects to a phone to send to the Health app.

It's a problem because it requires your phone. Consider places where phones are not permitted: your Apple watch gets a pass. So O2 sat is available in real time wherever you are if you have previous versions of the watch, which is not the case for the current version.

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

#332

Post by jajuuka »

bookofjoe wrote: post #331
jajuuka wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why that's a problem. They can still record the data on the watch and then when it reconnects to the phone it can send over the data for the analysis. Same as how they store metrics on the watch until it reconnects to a phone to send to the Health app.

It's a problem because it requires your phone. Consider places where phones are not permitted: your Apple watch gets a pass. So O2 sat is available in real time wherever you are if you have previous versions of the watch, which is not the case for the current version.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I am saying I don't see how that's not a fixable problem. How often do you need constant O2 readings? What places are phones not permitted but Apple Watches are? Seems like a highly niche problem to me. Obviously not as good as the original, but you should still get a constant histogram once reconnected.

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

#333

Post by bookofjoe »

jajuuka wrote: post #332
bookofjoe wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a problem because it requires your phone. Consider places where phones are not permitted: your Apple watch gets a pass. So O2 sat is available in real time wherever you are if you have previous versions of the watch, which is not the case for the current version.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I am saying I don't see how that's not a fixable problem. How often do you need constant O2 readings? What places are phones not permitted but Apple Watches are? Seems like a highly niche problem to me. Obviously not as good as the original, but you should still get a constant histogram once reconnected.

I completely understand what you said. It is NOT a fixable problem.

>How often do you need constant O2 readings?

You're missing the point: the fact you have the freedom to get as many readings as you like is fundamental. Who are you to decide how often I want/need them?

>What places are phones not permitted but Apple Watches are?

1. Among others: courtrooms (phones must be turned off, but no restriction on Apple Watches). Source: my appearances as an expert witness in courtrooms around the country. 2. Classrooms (phones off/Watches fine) 3. Theaters 4. In a dental chair and many, many more places.

>Obviously not as good as the original, but you should still get a constant histogram once reconnected.

But what if I can't reconnect or don't want to?

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

#334

Post by NavinF »

gf000 wrote: post #315
temporallobe wrote: post #255

BTW the O2 monitoring is inaccurate and unreliable compared to a proper pulse oximeter.

AFAIK most pulse oximeters themselves are plenty inaccurate (these "stick-on-your-finger" kinds), as they all work by the same mechanism.

The ones that send light through your finger and measure it on the other side are much more accurate than the ones that bounce light off your wrist like the Apple Watch. That said, they both work. This is easy to verify by holding your breath.

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

#335

Post by wat10000 »

haswell wrote: post #319
wat10000 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be silly to say it implies that employees are eggs because “poach” as in eggs and “poach” as in employees clearly don’t mean the same thing. But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game.

My quibble isn’t really with the terminology. It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine. It’s good for employees. It’s only bad for employers who want to suppress wages. The fact that it’s called “poaching” is just a reflection of the idea that it’s bad.

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

#336

Post by wat10000 »

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #323
wat10000 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“That’s why it’s generally illegal for another company to just come and rehire everyone wholesale.” Er, what? Can you elaborate on what makes this illegal?

The hiring in itself is technically okay but if you do it too much - which is what I implied by wholesale - it makes it hard to defend against allegations that you are not misappropriating trade secrets which is illegal. That’s part of the dispute between Apple and Masimo.

In other words, it’s not at all illegal for another company to come in and hire all of a company’s employees. It is illegal to steal trade secrets.

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

#337

Post by StopDisinfo910 »

wat10000 wrote: post #336
StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hiring in itself is technically okay but if you do it too much - which is what I implied by wholesale - it makes it hard to defend against allegations that you are not misappropriating trade secrets which is illegal. That’s part of the dispute between Apple and Masimo.

In other words, it’s not at all illegal for another company to come in and hire all of a company’s employees. It is illegal to steal trade secrets.

Aggressively hiring all of a company’s employees will get you condemned for stealing trade secrets so, in other worlds, it’s de facto illegal.

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

#338

Post by burnerthrow008 »

haswell wrote: post #319
wat10000 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

My dictionary gives this definition for "poaching":

1. to trespass for the purpose of stealing game

2. to appropriate (something) as one's own

You cannot "steal" or "appropriate" something which is not property or which cannot be owned. You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property.

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

#339

Post by haswell »

wat10000 wrote: post #335
haswell wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It would be silly to say it implies that employees are eggs because “poach” as in eggs and “poach” as in employees clearly don’t mean the same thing. But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game. My quibble isn’t really with the terminology. It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine. It’s good for employees. It’s only bad for employers who…

> But “poach” as in employees is clearly derived from “poach” as in game.

This is not obvious to me at all, nor have I ever conflated the two in my mind. Hell, the literal dictionary disagrees with you.

But beyond this, language evolves. There are many examples of words used today that bear very little resemblance to their original roots.

The thing I find curious is that you recognize immediately that eggs are unrelated to hiring employees, but refuse to acknowledge that shooting animals is also entirely unrelated to hiring employees.

> My quibble isn’t really with the terminology.

That’s not what you said above: “I’m saying that “poaching” is a horrible term for that action”.

> It’s with the idea that hiring another company’s employees is somehow bad. It’s perfectly fine.

Sometimes it’s fine, sometimes it’s not. I’ve been poached. It worked out well for me.

But hopefully you can recognize that not all scenarios are equal.

> It’s only bad for employers who want to suppress wages.

When a massive conglomerate poaches entire teams to crush competition, those wages aren’t gonna be around very long. In some (not all) circumstances, it’s anti-competitive and when examined in the context of the whole, is not guaranteed to be good for employees in the long run.

> The fact that it’s called “poaching” is just a reflection of the idea that it’s bad.

Again, this is the weight you are attaching to the word. The word holds no such weight in my mind nor have I ever encountered a person in my 20+ year career prior to this thread who was upset by it. This is a you thing.

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

#340

Post by haswell »

burnerthrow008 wrote: post #338
haswell wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> What makes you believe this? The definition of “poach” is not intrinsically linked to the notion of ownership/property. My dictionary gives this definition for "poaching": 1. to trespass for the purpose of stealing game 2. to appropriate (something) as one's own You cannot "steal" or "appropriate" something which is not property or which cannot be owned. You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not i…

Your dictionary is either not exhaustive, or it’s out of date. The word is not limited to the notions of “stealing” or “appropriation”, nor has it been for decades.

Just one example, but current dictionaries cover the business use of the word (among many others), e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach

> You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property.

Are you claiming that other definitions of “poach” do not exist? If you are, you are misinformed. If you are not, you are misunderstanding the word “intrinsic”.

Post reply on HN