Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AliveCor Files Antitrust Suit Against Apple for Preventing Third-Party Irregular Heart Rhythm Analysis on Apple Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do hope you are the judge in this case. Would be amazing to hear that sentence uttered in court.
In all seriousness though - It's not as if Apple is charging anything for the ECG functionality. Not sure if Apple has too many incentives in deliberately shutting out competition in this ultra niche space. In all likelihood, the developers just went their merry way and changed stuff around, and ended up breaking external apps - which they absolutely had no reason to care about as far as this is concerned.
FDA clearance is no big deal, as it is not approval. All they have done is shown their device is substantially equivalent to other similar devices that have been cleared or approved. It has not undergone trails to see if it is safe and effective; and since it is a low risk device approval is not needed. They could, in theory, even reference predicate devices that were removed from the market because of problems with them.
However, I bet Apple could last a lot longer than AliveCor when it comes to spending money on lawyers.
A more philosophical is "where is the line between innovation and improvement?" Card catalogues existed before web search engines existed; Sears sent catalogues and delivered items to your door before Amazon, etc.
From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one small step.
Honestly if you're going for the medical issue route, neither company is taking responsibility. Both Apple and aliveCor are not responsible for missed/False events or detection as they are both not dedicated telemetry devices that are interpreted by medical staff. It gets slightly confusing but a device can only suggest you have an issue and you should seek medical evaluation to have a proper diagnosis. And if you aren't symptomatic at the time but there is high suspicion then you will be sent home with a Holter monitor for dedicated 12-ECG which is the standard for diagnosis of arrhythmias.
A key point from this 2019 article released by the AHA titled: Subclinical and Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation: Pondering the Knowledge Gap: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.1
"Although consumer-grade devices hold some promise for AF detection outside the traditional medical settings, the actionability of these AF detections is currently uncertain, and the best practices for managing, interpreting, and treating patients on the basis of such data have not yet been established. This is particularly true when AF is detected with a photoplethysmography sensor rather than a direct electric recording."
With that information on medical practice guidelines and the diagnosis or arrhythmias it comes down to a situation where again Apple appears to be restricting access to api for their own benefit while touting open and fair access to all. Similar things could be said in regard to the apple watchOS in which the ability to load songs for offline playback was stifled for years to competitors. Say what you want about Spotify, but I can't believe it was a simple "reluctance" to use the api vs being blocked as Spotify, tidal, and deezer have all announced offline play for watchOS in the past week.
This issue seems to be more complex in regards to Apple blocking and reducing the data as the approval for aliveCor is based on the iPhone app, aliveCor band and apple watch ecg. If Apple is truly blocking access they they're essentially trying to force FDA removal, because there can't/shouldn't be any ad/marketing concerns due to HIPPA and PHI.
1 (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000740)
Boy, let me tell you about the 90's and Microsoft and how opinions have changed since then. If this were 20 years ago I doubt you'd be feeling the same way.
When you make money off others' work, then it is your fault that you didn't get a contractual obligation with that company. Suing is easier than making your own tech, but just because you can doesn't always mean you should.
"ECG wearables" is its own market now? How is that a thing? If you make any category niche enough, any company can have a monopoly. Does Peloton also have a monopoly over "internet-connected exercise equipment"? What a joke. The implications here is that any product differentiation and innovation makes you a monopoly. So Apple shouldn't add useful features to its products if it doesn't want to also be forced to share them with everyone?
Thank you. These incredibly narrow markets are just insane. Apple Watch is a wearable. NOT ECG wearable.
When determining whether somebody has monopoly power the courts needs to determine which market is relevant. That "ECG-capable wearables" is a relevant market is AliveCor's argument and you can find their rationale in the Complaint they filed.
Of course the courts will ultimately decide whether said argument flies or not, but I'd still advise against hard and fast opinions on the matter.
chinese smart watches offer blood pressure, ecg, pulse and skin temperature for like 40$ since like forever
… and iOS versions, and ECG hardware versions, etc. If some small change breaks the measurement/evaluation, you now have millions running an FDA-unapproved scenario with implied approval, and Apple being blamed for “this medical device doesn’t work”. Apple can’t guarantee their changes won’t break aliveCor’s app. At best many users think poorly of Apple (marketing nightmare), at worst Apple gets fined/sued for lots of digit$.
You can’t guarantee Apple won’t get screwed in this scenario.
Alive Corp didn't invent the ECG, I tried their product that used the watch band instead of the two pad device, and I couldn't get a consistent reading, very frustrating because I really wanted it to work. Got an updated AW and it works fine. There are plenty of people that don't have a AW, and their two pad devices works fine.
Costco doesn't remotely break products after they've already sold them. I'm not sure how you thought Costco was relevant.
Your initial post was that Apple charges twice...developers and consumers. Not sure what logic there is behind that though. Now you are saying Costco doesn't remotely break products, which neither does Apple. But this seems to be moving the goal posts.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
innovate -
- to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
I'm sorry this is such a difficult thing to understand.
Apple charges people for something. They are therefore obligated to actually deliver it and not break it.
Costco is not relevant here because Costco (like the vast majority of merchants) doesn't intentionally break stuff after the money has been moved from one account to another.
I only bring up the multiple transactions because you could otherwise make some obtuse lawyerly argument that, oh, Apple isn't actually obligated to have a functional SDK because that isn't delivered as part of transaction #1. Ok, fine, maybe transaction #1 doesn't actually apply and obligate Apple to have a functional SDK, but in the process of a consumer receiving an Apple Watch with whatever paid app actually involved Apple receiving money on 5 transactions:
1 - They charged the consumer for the Apple Watch
2 - They charged the consumer for an iOS device
3 - They charged the consumer for an app
4 - They charged the developer for a developer license
5 - They charged the developer for selling the app
At some point, one of these many transactions obligated Apple to not intentionally break the functionality of the app, without which it's possible that none of the rest of the transactions would have happened.
===
What is with the continuing worship of Apple? What do people actually admire here? Steve was a great guy with great vision. Johnny had some great designs. They're both gone. There's nothing left at Apple but morally bankrupt rent seeking profiteers.
Why am I here? I've been wondering it for a few years. Someday soon I'll sign off of MR for the last time. IDK... I need to know where the VR stuff goes. Or the Car. I'm 99% sure the Car will be a total flop, if Apple ever bothers showing anything (maybe it'll die before its reveal like the TV did). VR could go either way.
See ya tomorrow!
What I've seen on Macrumors is when Apple is criticized without some valid criticism, poster tries to connect the dots through illogic and most always the post is convoluted and difficult to follow. Unfortunately debunking folderol is always time consuming.
This is such a general statement as to be meaningless.
The above is mixing use cases. You're mixing a development use case with an end-user use case. I'll formulate a windows use case below after the above is dissected.
1. Developer spends $99 for a developer license that grants access to the software, libraries, technical support and app store. App store is a complete management system and testing facility and, the $99 can be a tax write-off and like Epic net the developer hundreds of millions of dollars. That's your #4. This is the development use case.
2. Developer is free to put the app on the app store at a price they want for $0 upfront. No hosting fees. If physical goods are being delivered, there is no additional fee. If digital goods through IAP are being deliver the commission is 15/30% based on the IAP. This is your #2. This is the selling use case.
3. They charged the consumer for an IOS device. This is your #2. I guess this is similar to a car dealer charging a customer the price of a car.
4. They charged the consumer for the Apple Watch. 'This is your #1. I guess this is similar to a car dealer charging a customer for a top of the line trim.
5. They charged the consumer for an app. This is your #3. Not so fast there. Many apps have a $0 price tag, which goes hand in hand with #2. The essence of what you are saying is a cell phone company charges for the service and then charges the caller and the callee.
The same use case happens with windows.
This statement is a generalization with no substance.
What's with the continuing criticism of Apple?
There's a lot to admire.
I don't know what rent seeking means, but I can tell you Apples' revenue is based on sales. And it seems like Apple customers are buying based on the recent record revenues.
I guess the future is in your own hands. Cheers!
I didn’t mention the courts. It was a personal anecdote in response to someone else saying their product was “better”.
Apple does not (and would be insane if they did) promise unchanging access to Apple Watch features in perpetuity. Features and API's to access them can and do change and the fact that they can change is very much spelled out in the developer agreement. So no, they are NOT obligated to "not break it". New devices and new versions of software break APIs all the time, this is part of the lifecycle of software development. What you are suggesting would fundamentally break how software, all software, works. It would require endless backwards compatibility. It would be functionally impossible to maintain.
Defending and/or agreeing with an action or decision by Apple does not mean worshipping Apple.
Its ok if you don't like or admire Apple or its products, thats fine. No one is demanding you like Apple or use its products.
But what I don't understand are the number of people on this forum who, like you, hate Apple. Why are you here? Why would you spend your time on a site dedicated to a topic that you hate? I'm not against critical discussion of Apple its products or decisions, but this is (or at least was) a site for people who LIKE Apple and its products in general. Seems odd to me to intentionally spend time discussing something you hate.