AliveCor Files Antitrust Suit Against Apple for Preventing Third-Party Irregular Heart Rhythm Analysis on Apple Watch

[techwhiz]

It's nuts. You build your own platform, O/S and now you get sued because you won't give everyone access to your proprietary, hard work. Sounds like all these idiots should go invent their own tech and O/S and stop complaining about Apple's.

No, read the story.
They had FDA approval in 2017.
KardiBand was designed to give better information.
Apple kept moving the goalpost toake it more difficult for their product and software. Then (surprise), Apple came out with a competitive product and made the API such that KardiBand no longer functioned as intended. It was better than Apple.

Apple absolutely killed competition in favor of their own product.

 

[willyx]

AliveCor KardiaBand was a total joke, it killed Apple Watch battery. A lot of quality control issues, they refused to replace faulty units.

AliveCor is a really shady company. Their business model stinks:

They sell a crippled product, forcing you to buy $99 subscription. Not to mention those so-called “advanced” determinations, which cost even more.

And by the way: Resting heart rate is a “Premium Protection Plan” feature.

Whatever you think of their business model is irrelevant to the point of the article.

 

[jlc1978]

No. It's not "that simple". The US has antitrust laws for a reason. I get that a vocal 20% of the members here disagree with those laws, but only when it comes to Apple (and not Google or Microsoft), but agree or disagree with those laws, they exist to protect consumers.

I would say some think antitrust laws mean a company has to sell a product on the product producer's terms, not theirs.

Exactly. Consumers, not competitor's business model. The ultimate test for monopoly behavior is is the consumer harmed? Merely removing a product does not necessarily harm the consumer, nor is requiring a product to meet certain standards a harm.

Is Apple forcing Alivecor to raise prices and thus harm the consumer? No. Is Apple preventing Alivecor from selling its product through other channels and with other ways of reading heartbeats? No. It's no different than any other store deciding to stop selling a product or changing how their product interacts with an existing one.

I also get that same 20% would be not only be fine with, but would applaud, Tim Cook personally kicking in their front door and taking their dog and first born.

And some would demand some Tim Cook feed their dog and first born at no cost to them...

 

[icerabbit]

I understand it blows when Apple comes out with a native solution for things and doesn't want competing products to cause confusion, competition, etc ...

So, time for AliveCor to approach other smartwatch makers or to build their own SmartWatch?

 

[Docsta80]

Hahahahha pathetic. Everyone wants a piece of the Apple pie.

 

[thekeyring]

Next week: "MacRumours user thekeyring sues Samsung for not allowing third-party temperature controller on Samsung Smart Fridge".

 

[MauiPa]

Totally not seeing anti-trust issues. apple won't let an app on their smart watch, wha, wha, wha! OK where is anti-trust? If your saying there is a law requiring open access, well there isn't. I'm OK with you saying there should be, but there simply isn't. BTW do aliveCor devices allow apple software to run on them? Lawsuit!.

When will all this stupidity end? If you want your software on a device, build a device. If you whine about having to use off-device methods to get payment without paying commissions for on-device payments, so? cheeseburgers!

 

[MauiPa]

Well it’s funny you say that, the band had FDA approval years ago

FDA Clears First Medical Device Accessory for Apple Watch®

www.alivecor.com

I was going to say the same thing, but if it has FDA approval why not?

OK, but where is the requirement for another company to inter-operate with your product?

 

[JerryDon]

Kardia may just have a chance on this one....

 

[bsolar]

Totally not seeing anti-trust issues. apple won't let an app on their smart watch, wha, wha, wha! OK where is anti-trust? If your saying there is a law requiring open access, well there isn't. I'm OK with you saying there should be, but there simply isn't. BTW do aliveCor devices allow apple software to run on them? Lawsuit!.

The Complaint claims that Apple commands 70% of the ECG-capable wearables' market and argues that it means this gives Apple monopoly power in the market. There is no hard and fast rule to decide whether a company has monopoly power but a large market share is usually part of the equation.

Assuming (and it's a big "if") that the claim stands, Apple would be subject to different rules than other companies lacking said monopoly power: namely having monopoly power is in itself not illegal, but using it to stifle competition is.

Not only in such case anti-trust regulations might require open access, they might even lead to the lines of business to be split so that there is no conflict of interest, like e.g. Apple's health line of business being required to be split in an independent company. Microsoft risked that when they were under anti-trust scrutiny for their bundling of IE with Windows.

 

[ececlv]

crazy. If apple let no third party apps on the aw would it still be a monopoly? I cant load 3rd party apps on my garmin at all. That would be a good candidate to sue too

does alivecar provide an api to the data they generate?

 

[MauiPa]

Good! keep 'em coming. When will Apple learn...? They really need to be broken up.

huh? do you have any idea how this relates to anti-trust? Is there a hidden clause somewhere that requires your products to be used on a third-party piece of hardware? Right, I didn't think so. Once Alivevor sued Apple in the first place, Well, why would Apple proceed, they are not required to. On the Other hand, AliveCor could have come up with a contractual mechanism where both parties benefitted. But oops, lets sue on the basis of some laws that don't apply here.

 

[macsound1]

So, to all the people who think Apple is in the wrong here I have a question; is Apple supposed to stand still in the water and not make compelling and competitive products while the market around them builds onto Apple's technology? Is Apple merely supposed to develop a smart phone, or smart watch, only for other third parties to tackle better technology onto Apple's hardware?

Apple products are successful because they just work and people like them. I choose not to go with product XYZ because product Apple works for me. This is my choice and I should have the choice to choose. I know that Apple has essentially eliminated this product from working with the Apple Watch and that's what this suit is about but given that it is health related, it is easy to see why. Doesn't mean the company in question does not support other platforms, or their own, which still work just fine.

I'm thinking the same thing, do lawsuits like this stifle competition instead of foster it?
If you were a company making a hardware device, it becomes advantageous to make it a closed system so you don't have to support other people wanting your support with their app using your hardware.

It also gets me thinking about the users. If you are depending on a device to give you accurate information about your body, you want it to come from a reputable source.

I trust the work Apple is doing on the back end to make sure the BPM they're showing me to be more accurate than a 3rd party. While Apple's hardware may be relaying the information to the 3rd party app, ultimately showing the same information, if that 3rd party app is "interpreting" the information from the sensor differently than the Apple app would, then who do you trust and how can you be certain the information is correct?

We're depending on the R&D that apple continually does, ensuring the sensor and software readout is accurate to what's actually happening.
And who gets blamed when a 3rd party app falsely predicts something because Apple made a hw and sw update that the 3rd party app didn't take into account.

 

[MauiPa]

But Timo said you could buy Android

Yah, but when your product stops working on android, who the heck to you sue? The device makers, Google?

 

[bb9]

What's sad is that AliveCor actually is better, too.

They've been doing this for a long time. Their a-fib detection is superior because it actually analyzes rates that are typical for a-fib, whereas Apple caps their detection to low pulse rates. AliveCor's algorithms have gotten really good and are approved for more diagnoses by the FDA than Apple's.

Tim Cook talks about reading letters of people's lives he's saved, and then they cut out a competitor that actually has a better and less expensive product. How many lives has that impacted?

AliveCor should have created a complete product - that do not NEED to piggy back on someone else’s.

 

[bsolar]

OK, but where is the requirement for another company to inter-operate with your product?

The requirement would have nothing to do with the FDA but with anti-trust regulation, assuming the case against Apple would stand of course.

It would not be unprecedented: Microsoft settled their infamous anti-trust case by granting better interoperability to third-party applications on Windows. For comparison, the first sentence against them in that case required them to split their OS business from everything else to avoid conflicts of interests altogether.

 

[MauiPa]

I'm thinking the same thing, do lawsuits like this stifle competition instead of foster it?
If you were a company making a hardware device, it becomes advantageous to make it a closed system so you don't have to support other people wanting your support with their app using your hardware.

It also gets me thinking about the users. If you are depending on a device to give you accurate information about your body, you want it to come from a reputable source.

I trust the work Apple is doing on the back end to make sure the BPM they're showing me to be more accurate than a 3rd party. While Apple's hardware may be relaying the information to the 3rd party app, ultimately showing the same information, if that 3rd party app is "interpreting" the information from the sensor differently than the Apple app would, then who do you trust and how can you be certain the information is correct?

We're depending on the R&D that apple continually does, ensuring the sensor and software readout is accurate to what's actually happening.
And who gets blamed when a 3rd party app falsely predicts something because Apple made a hw and sw update that the 3rd party app didn't take into account.

Excellent point, but its even simpler than that. Apple Watch! enough said. there is no requirement to have your product work with third party stuff. Now AliveCor could have worked with Apple and entered into a contractual agreement with Apple, but wait - they sued Apple, instead. Sounds like a winning business strategy to me. How did it work out, let me know?

 

[Naraxus]

Good. In typical Apple fashion they steal other technology and ideas from the hard work of others then change the rules so that only Apple can use and benefit from them. Such a scummy company.

 

[I7guy]

Apple doesn't really do anything innovative either. They generally take existing technologies and look for ways to improve it and make it easier for the general population to use.

It's not that Samsung has done anything innovative either. In that vein they basically have copied a myriad of existing tech and improved it: oled, waterproofing, wifi, cellular modem, fingerprint reader plus more were all existing and prior technologies.

 

[gene731]

But Timo said you could buy Android

You can and perhaps you should

 

[I7guy]

Good. In typical Apple fashion they steal other technology and ideas from the hard work of others then change the rules so that only Apple can use and benefit from them. Such a scummy company.

Good. This will be determined in court whether it's true or not. Bet Apple prevails in this matter.

 

[bsolar]

Excellent point, but its even simpler than that. Apple Watch! enough said. there is no requirement to have your product work with third party stuff.

Yes, there can be if you are found to have monopoly power. Microsoft was forced to do exactly that to settle their case.

 

[fernelius]

As I keep reading these various lawsuits, I start to wonder at times if Apple might regret having opened the App Store to all at some point.

I compare it in ways to Garmin or TomTom GPS receivers and similar devices. Apple could have only allowed web apps and apps they co-developed with partners or specifically authorized from partners. Nobody seems to be suing Garmin and TomTom for their exclusive and absolute control of "apps." The problem is that Apple opened the platform for others to develop, and what appears to be a small number of developers aren't happy with the opportunity Apple has given them. They want more and free. They could be dealing with a closed platform like Garmin or TomTom. It's as if they want either no opportunity or full-access.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, there can be if you are found to have monopoly power. Microsoft was forced to do exactly that to settle their case.

It's the "if" in the sentence that counts.

 

[bousozoku]

Apple showed from the start that they were interested in pursuing health monitoring with their watch. They had to slow down because they weren't ready at the time.

If third parties didn't anticipate that Apple would continue, is it monopolistic?