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

[Khalmoon]

Does that mean i can create a terrible product and sue apple because they have something better?

 

[bsolar]

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?

AFAIK AliveCor's technology did get the FDA approval and that's what a consumer was supposed to trust.

Apple does not allow third-party applications to access the sensor's data directly, a capability which AliveCor would gladly have since it would give them the most data to detect conditions with the highest accuracy.

Apple instead only offers third-party applications data filtered by an algorithm: the original version was transparent enough to still allow detecting conditions, but the modified version is not.

Apple's own application clearly does not use the same data made available to third-parties since said data is filtered in a way that would prevent even Apple itself from detecting conditions: Apple likely uses an internal API with much more accurate data which third-parties cannot access.

Basically the reason Apple can show better information is not because they "do a better work": it's because Apple actively prevents third-parties from getting the same accurate information Apple can.

 

[swingerofbirch]

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

If we keep following that logic, we should end net neutrality. Every product should have to privately negotiate a way to interact with the millions of other devices in existence and lay down the infrastructure necessary to do so. Tear up the roads and lay cable for every single product you might ever want to use.

 

[Naraxus]

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

Smh. Is it ever possible for you to admit Apple is in the wrong?

 

[bsolar]

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

I do agree it's a very big "if".

 

[swingerofbirch]

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.

A $10 pulse ox will give you more reliable BPM than an Apple Watch.

 

[swingerofbirch]

I would not be surprised if Apple is also concerned about potential liability if Alivecor misses something and somebody has problems because they relied on its readings. I would think the FDA would require some sort or getting a new approval every time Apple made a substantive change to how the Apple watch collects data used for approved devices.


Apple should just by them if they are that much better.

Well, that would be pretty sad because Apple has a tendency to let things wither on the vine or reduce feature sets (like Beddit), and it would also cut off all the Android users of AliveCor. I hope they keep going independently. The algorithm is being updated constantly and is quite good. AliveCor is also much simpler for a senior to figure out than setting up an Apple Watch (meaning the Kardia device not the KardiaBand).

 

[brand]

Otherwise, Apple could care less !

At least Apple still cares, like you said.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

My deep web research has found that…

AliveCor has a monopoly on at least THREE products!

KardiaMobile, KardiaMobile 6L AND KardiaCare!

It’s unfair that AliveCor has complete control over these CRITICAL health focused products. The government should step in and break them up immediately or have they NOT learned the lesson of “allowing companies to build their products as they see fit and acquire success from that work”!?

 

[I7guy]

Smh. Is it ever possible for you to admit Apple is in the wrong?

It's not up to me if they are wrong. Your post clearly indicated they were wrong based on a headline and some information. Whatever happened to the innocent until guilty. Don't have to answer, I know...with Apple it's guilty until proven innocent.

 

[ctdonath]

Absolutely right move by Apple.

This is a medical issue (a-fib detection, a feature I really needed a few years ago), involving potentially lethal consequences (ER was surprised when I walked in).
If Apple and AliveCor don't come to a mutual agreement on making the a-fib product work end-to-end, with all the myriad of interactions (OS versions, hardware versions, error conditions, etc), Apple could very well find themselves on the wrong end of a suit for a product they didn't agree to (which they would have to for the app to get onto App Store). Apple doesn't want to be responsible for ensuring that when iOS updates, or new hardware rolls out (including silent mid-stream updates), that AliveCor's app will work perfectly and in total compliance with FDA approvals.

Suing Apple for App Store access for this product means Apple has to agree to tort responsibility if the app, for whatever reason, fails with grave consequences.

This isn't like Epic quibbling over billing arrangements.
This is AliveCor insisting "you must sell our app, and be responsible if an update on your part lethally breaks our part." Not happening.

Yes, the app may have FDA approval - for this installation of this app version on this OS version running on this iteration of the hardware, as unilaterally submitted for approval by one party. Apple has no incentive to consent to guaranteeing the next minor OS update or mid-stream hardware tweak won't break this app (and others of similarly grave consequence).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

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)

No, it should apply to EVERY company. Google does what they want with Google products, Microsoft does what they want with Microsoft products, Sony does what they want with Sony products, Apple does what they want with Apple products. I would no more be in favor of dictating what cut Sony takes on the Playstation store as I would in dictating the rules Google has for entry into the Google Play store.

On the OTHER side, you have people that ONLY want rules to apply very specifically to one company such that one has to imagine new heretofore unseen categories to try to envision such a thing happening. It’s not even a. pro-Apple thing, it’s a pro-business thing. Business create products, businesses control those products. But, because at some point in the past Apple wronged them (by having very fanatic fans, OR by becoming one of the most valuable companies in the world OR because they discontinued .mac OR released an expensive tower they couldn’t afford), folks have to twist themselves in knots in this way.

 

[Rogifan]

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?

I get when Apple takes certain things and brings them to the masses but their usual MO is to offer something simple/basic and allow 3rd party developers to provide the more complex. That doesn’t seem to be the case here (assuming AliveCor is being accurate in their suit).

 

[GMacAppleUser]

So Apple is using its monopoly power to dominate the Apple Watch ECG market?

For real... I'm confused- their **** requires the apple watch, what is the motive for apple to sabotage them exactly? Couldn't they have changed the algorithm to like- make their own feature work? What does apple give a **** if you wanna buy an extra band that does something that the watch you already bought does?

 

[jlc1978]

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.

Except, IIRC correctly, MS was forcing PC makers to buy a Windows license for every PC they sold even if it didn't include Windows, and sought to prevent installation of other browsers over IE. The verdict was overturned on appeal and remanded, DOJ then settled.

A key difference is if you made a browser Windows dominated your potential market; for EKG devices there are plenty of alternative ways to bring a device such as Activecor's.

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

MS agreed to disclose its API's so developers could ensure compatibility with Windows, not make any changes to them and only do so for a few years. It didn't require substantive changes to how MS did business. Alivecor is claiming changes Apple made made there app unusable, not that they didn't make APIs available and or documented.

 

[Robert.Walter]

They did get FDA approval per the article but their complaint is that they are dependent upon Apple devices to trigger their own device's operation and Apple has changes its API so they can no longer trigger that process. If I were making a medical device that was dependent on Siemens imaging equipment to trigger my operation I wouldn't be at all surprised if Siemens unilaterally changed their interfaces either. That would have been a risk I took on by making my device dependent upon another manufacturer without contractual agreements in place to support said interface. They're taking a shot in the courts but it won't work out in their favor.

edit: typo

They try to piggyback on Apple and are upset that it isn’t a free, easy or sustainable ride.

If their product got a lawsuit Apple would likely get sued too because it is part of the performance of the Kardia product. If I was Apple I wouldn’t want to spend anything defending such things triggered by a3rd party’s device.

 

[ClevelandGuy]

If we keep following that logic, we should end net neutrality. Every product should have to privately negotiate a way to interact with the millions of other devices in existence and lay down the infrastructure necessary to do so. Tear up the roads and lay cable for every single product you might ever want to use.

Strawman! For the public benefit roads are built acquiring land through payment and eminent domain. The cable companies negotiate a contract with the cities and pay a franchise tax to operate in the city. In this case it is one business wanting to use data supplied be another business’ device, so yes AliveCor has to try to negotiate a contract with Apple to use the data supplied by the Apple Watch and Apple is completely within their rights not to sell that data to AliveCor or anyone else.

The other big point that is being missed is product liability - if Apple sells the data and the AliveCor software report a false reading let’s say it reports everything normal but atrial fibrillation is starting, then who is responsible for the potential harm to the customer because of the false reading? Apple? AliveCor? In our current litigation prone society, the plaintiff‘s attorneys go after the company with the deepest pockets whether that particular company is at fault or not, so in this case Apple would be sued not AliveCor. Apple has to weigh the possible gains of licensing to AlivCor versus the possible liability incurred if there is a wrongful death lawsuit.

 

[ACHD]

Absolutely right move by Apple.

This is a medical issue (a-fib detection, a feature I really needed a few years ago), involving potentially lethal consequences (ER was surprised when I walked in).
If Apple and AliveCor don't come to a mutual agreement on making the a-fib product work end-to-end, with all the myriad of interactions (OS versions, hardware versions, error conditions, etc), Apple could very well find themselves on the wrong end of a suit for a product they didn't agree to (which they would have to for the app to get onto App Store). Apple doesn't want to be responsible for ensuring that when iOS updates, or new hardware rolls out (including silent mid-stream updates), that AliveCor's app will work perfectly and in total compliance with FDA approvals.

Suing Apple for App Store access for this product means Apple has to agree to tort responsibility if the app, for whatever reason, fails with grave consequences.

This isn't like Epic quibbling over billing arrangements.
This is AliveCor insisting "you must sell our app, and be responsible if an update on your part lethally breaks our part." Not happening.

Yes, the app may have FDA approval - for this installation of this app version on this OS version running on this iteration of the hardware, as unilaterally submitted for approval by one party. Apple has no incentive to consent to guaranteeing the next minor OS update or mid-stream hardware tweak won't break this app (and others of similarly grave consequence).

This is misleading because the issue is not " THEY MUST SELL OUR PRODUCT OR SERVICES".
It's they made a change so our product would no longer work.
When acting as a monopoly. IF you make a material change that is DIRECTLY targeting the ability of another to provide a service that you also provide its a problem.
The issue at hand is that they limited the information available and stopped the ability for any other applications or devices to be triggered. Thereby directly STOPPING the activation of 3rd party HW.


The 3rd party is not forcing apple to support or do anything. Apple made available a feature in their API that allowed 3rd parties devices to activate. Apple directly removed this feature. It has ALWAYS been up to the 3rd party to make their **** work when using another companies API.

BUT when you remove a feature that ONLY 3rd parties use to compete with your product it becomes an issue and antitrust issues get involved.
You had an equal playing field. So why make the change to remove features that allowed different products to use data and to initiate them.

The 3rd party properly used the API provided by apple and everything worked. BUT APple removed the capability entirely and that is not the same as forcing apple to make something work.


TLDR apple directly disabled any 3rd party devices from accessing data or being able to activate devices.
AKA 3rd party didnt break anything... Apple forcibly didnt want anyone with competing devices to work on their platform.

 

[Andregant]

I’m suing Apple for infringing on the apple trademark the fruit used to dominate in my mind. Know any good attorneys who want to take my money?

 

[MauiPa]

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.

John Snow is that you? Seriously other than a hater rant, is any of this true? apple uses current technologies that are available, other companies use current technologies that are available. ECGs have been around for a long darn time. So has using light to detect pulses. and on and on and on. But hey, if you think Microsoft owes Apple a gazillion billion jillion dollars for copying the GUI interface for Windows from Apple. I'm with yah all the way. History lesson, Xerox Parc invented it, sold rights to Apple in the form of stock, Microsoft copied it, and through a sleazy deal got a verbal OK to use the technology for making Office available for the Mac, which was upheld in court. So, who stole from who?

 

[MauiPa]

This is misleading because the issue is not " THEY MUST SELL OUR PRODUCT OR SERVICES".
It's they made a change so our product would no longer work.
When acting as a monopoly. IF you make a material change that is DIRECTLY targeting the ability of another to provide a service that you also provide its a problem.
The issue at hand is that they limited the information available and stopped the ability for any other applications or devices to be triggered. Thereby directly STOPPING the activation of 3rd party HW.


The 3rd party is not forcing apple to support or do anything. Apple made available a feature in their API that allowed 3rd parties devices to activate. Apple directly removed this feature. It has ALWAYS been up to the 3rd party to make their **** work when using another companies API.

BUT when you remove a feature that ONLY 3rd parties use to compete with your product it becomes an issue and antitrust issues get involved.
You had an equal playing field. So why make the change to remove features that allowed different products to use data and to initiate them.

The 3rd party properly used the API provided by apple and everything worked. BUT APple removed the capability entirely and that is not the same as forcing apple to make something work.


TLDR apple directly disabled any 3rd party devices from accessing data or being able to activate devices.
AKA 3rd party didnt break anything... Apple forcibly didnt want anyone with competing devices to work on their platform.

this is misleading. "It's they made a change so our product would no longer work". changes are made all the time. aliveCor had no contractual relationship with Apple to continue providing functionality. alivecor could have worked with Apple and made a mutually beneficial arrangement to continue certain features and function (its called a contract), instead they sued Apple. So, Alivecor is very clearly in the wrong, so lets sue Apple again. How about dropping the lawsuit and not targeting competition against them, and coming to a mutually agreeable set of terms.

The presumption that code was changed solely to prevent a certain use is speculation at best. the truth might be that the changes required new programming for AiveCor, or even that Apple discontinued a feature in its API (it happens), but absent a viable working relationship, even a contract for one company's product to continue working with another, they got bupkuss.

Finally, just to emphasize, you are under no obligation to ever produce a product that continues to work with another company's product, unless you have a contract

 

[Apple_Robert]

Why does AliveCor think Apple is obligated to allow third party readings? After reading the article, it appears that much like Epic, AliveCor wants the benefits of the App Store without having to tow the line, as well as dictating to Apple what it will do.

 

[gnomeisland]

This seems much more credible than the Epic lawsuit. Apple's behavior also seems more monopolistic than simply following industry norms on pricing and requiring people who use their market place to pay them for the service. It seems this company isn't whining about profit sharing but Apple abusing their position to strangle competition from a third-party who seems to have only acted in good faith.

I haven't read all the details, but this is far more troubling than anything about the Epic case IMO.

 

[I7guy]

AFAIK AliveCor's technology did get the FDA approval and that's what a consumer was supposed to trust.

Apple does not allow third-party applications to access the sensor's data directly, a capability which AliveCor would gladly have since it would give them the most data to detect conditions with the highest accuracy.

Apple instead only offers third-party applications data filtered by an algorithm: the original version was transparent enough to still allow detecting conditions, but the modified version is not.

Apple's own application clearly does not use the same data made available to third-parties since said data is filtered in a way that would prevent even Apple itself from detecting conditions: Apple likely uses an internal API with much more accurate data which third-parties cannot access.

Basically the reason Apple can show better information is not because they "do a better work": it's because Apple actively prevents third-parties from getting the same accurate information Apple can.

The question is did Apple do this knowing a lawsuit could be initiated. They can't be that stupid as to not be able to read the tea leaves, so to speak.

If we keep following that logic, we should end net neutrality.

Pretty sure net neutrality was ended.

Every product should have to privately negotiate a way to interact with the millions of other devices in existence and lay down the infrastructure necessary to do so. Tear up the roads and lay cable for every single product you might ever want to use.

 

[bsolar]

Except, IIRC correctly, MS was forcing PC makers to buy a Windows license for every PC they sold even if it didn't include Windows, and sought to prevent installation of other browsers over IE. The verdict was overturned on appeal and remanded, DOJ then settled.

A key difference is if you made a browser Windows dominated your potential market; for EKG devices there are plenty of alternative ways to bring a device such as Activecor's.

The example of Microsoft is more to detail the extreme case, not for me to say that Apple will be found at that level or that it will incur in the same fate. The monopoly power of Microsoft was clear as day, Apple's case is not nearly as one-sided.

The Complaint claims that Apple commands a significant market share for ECG-capable wearable devices still. This doesn't mean they enjoy monopoly power automatically, but it's at least a reasonable argument in favor of that notion.

MS agreed to disclose its API's so developers could ensure compatibility with Windows, not make any changes to them and only do so for a few years. It didn't require substantive changes to how MS did business. Alivecor is claiming changes Apple made made there app unusable, not that they didn't make APIs available and or documented.

Apple's own offer is unlikely to use the same API third-party applications have available, otherwise Apple's own offer would also be incapable of detecting heart conditions. This means Apple's offer likely uses an internal undisclosed and exclusive API able to provide more fine-grained heart sensor data not available to third-parties.

Furthermore, the claim is that the change to the third-party API was made with the specific intent of preventing third-party Apps to be able to compete with Apple's native offer: if Apple is found to have monopoly power it would be an argument in favour of the notion that they are actively using it to stifle competition.