The cost of making the heart sensor work with tattoos is not worth the benefit of making those sales. Apple wants to sell to people with tattoos on their wrists, but not enough to raise the price and lose sales to the rest of us.
I'm assuming that a sensor that can compensate for tattoo ink will cost more. If you have information that it will cost the same or less and work as well, post it and I'll revise my assumption.I'm confused. 1. Where are you getting your information regarding the cost of the sensor? 2. How does a sensor that works with dark tattoos affect a sale to the rest of us? If your answer to question 2 is the cost would increase, please circle back to question 1.
So you're saying this is not a real issue but rather Apple chose not to spend the money to make it work? What's your source for that?
I'm assuming that a sensor that can compensate for tattoo ink will cost more. If you have information that it will cost the same or less and work as well, post it and I'll revise my assumption.
Apple will replace the sensor in future models if they think it is worth it. If they don't replace the sensor, we will know that selling to people with wrist tattoos is not a good business strategy in terms of ROI.
Apple wants to sell as many watches as they can to as many people as they can reach. How is it not their problem? Apple is a business. Anything that can dissuade a customer from purchasing your product is a problem.
Not a problem for Apple. The customer is not compatible.
Like drug companies, they can warn the side effects or potential drug allergies and not all patients can take it.
My point is that Apple probably won't make wrist tattoos a priority.Why would I have that information? You're the one making the claims about cost. I assumed you had that information since you said it would cost more. It's not like I claimed it would cost less or be the same. I made no claims at all.
Bolded: Is there some rational behind this thought? There's no straight line logic behind it. Apple could also not replace the sensor because none are available that solves the issue. That has nothing to do with business strategy or ROI.
I think our conversation is focusing too much on tattoos. Besides, it's not like wrist tattoo'd people can't buy the watch. The current sensor also has problems with motion as well. I would think this is a bigger issue than the tattoo since rhythmic movement is part of a lot of exercises. An improved sensor is in Apple's best interest.
that is true but the percentage of people affected is tiny and Apple can and will live with it. what this isn't is any kind of -gate. The main point here is that tattoos are an entirely elective procedure. bad for people with heavy tattoos on their wrists but anybody getting them bears full responsibility if what they choose to do with their bodies interferes with some consumer gadget. Another poster mentioned that tattoos can interfere with MRI. does it mean that this is MRI machines fault and they are badly designed? no. of course people with tattoos should be warned about possible MRI dangers but that's all.
likewise the only thing that Apple needs to do here is warn people about this issue which they have now done.
The cost of making the heart sensor work with tattoos is not worth the benefit of making those sales. Apple wants to sell to people with tattoos on their wrists, but not enough to raise the price and lose sales to the rest of us.
Apologies. Nothing in your quote, beyond the 3 words I bolded, has anything to do with what I wrote. Never mentioned any -gate. Never even mentioned tattoos. I simply disagreed with the assertion that it's not a problem for Apple. My statement is relevant to any business selling to consumers. If the goal is to sell your product to as many consumers as possible, anything that can possibly impede the sale is a problem for the business. Whether it's wrist tattoos and rhythmic motion in your watch, low MPG in your SUV, inconsistent flow in your fountain pen, or toner streaking from your printer, it's still a problem for the business. I didn't say a big problem. Just problem. Whether that problem is worthy of remedy is up to the business.that is true but the percentage of people affected is tiny and Apple can and will live with it. what this isn't is any kind of -gate. The main point here is that tattoos are an entirely elective procedure. bad for people with heavy tattoos on their wrists but anybody getting them bears full responsibility if what they choose to do with their bodies interferes with some consumer gadget. Another poster mentioned that tattoos can interfere with MRI. does it mean that this is MRI machines fault and they are badly designed? no. of course people with tattoos should be warned about possible MRI dangers but that's all.
likewise the only thing that Apple needs to do here is warn people about this issue which they have now done.
I'm really not sure when I said Apple would make wrist tattoos a priority. I just said it's a problem.My point is that Apple probably won't make wrist tattoos a priority.
I have a tattoo. Not in the area in question.. I guess I'm ignorant to the FACT that there are metals apparently in certain inks. Why the hell would I cry my eyes out about placing metals on my skin and a device not work as advertised for MY OWN irregularity.
OMG the people here crying like "I'm entitled to everything in life as a result of MY preferences"....
Nowhere does it say that the watch doesn't "work".
If somebody cares SO much about their lives then I'd suggest you think twice about doucing your body in mass with INK METALS on your skin ESPECIALLY IN AREAS WHERE THE SKIN ITSELF IS SO THIN -- Start there when crying about feeling discriminated against - not to mention the FACT that the people I know that have full arm tattoos go to GREAT LENGTHS to conceal them in order to get certain levels of EMPLOYMENT and face a SELF IMPOSED DISCRIMINATION AS IT IS-- #!
In reading that TATTOO REMOVAL statistically is up 440% on average is indicative of a problem that bears NO responsibility of Apples. That's the fault of TRENDS.
Here we are arguing about a certain small micro segment of world society being shut out of A FUNCTION of a device BECAUSE of their own CHOICES -- and -- that a company that's falling over themselves publicly trying to be as INCLUSIVE as it can be is inadvertently being assailed by a totally elective procedure to place inks based with metals that nets a result of potential inaccuracies of that function. ???
Seriously. Call out the lawyers. Get going on the class action. Call in the ACLU. This is so discriminatory #
Society in general should be waking up today far more worried that the STABILITY of our societies are at risk because of discriminatory actions against people of color that weren't able to CHOOSE to alter skin color just to avoid discrimination and as we are seeing in the media everyday lately -- DEATH.
Get some perspective people. RELAX. Most of YOU with tattoos in that area will be seeking removal of those tattoos at some point in your life and most of you will be expecting that society in some way help YOU pay for it. Bet me.
I think the poster mis-typed that but it makes sense to me. The tattoo in that analogy is not the side effect, ineffectiveness is the side effect, the tattoo you could say is a "condition affecting the efficacy" or something like that. But overall it still works.Tattoos are a "side effect"? Of what? And the ideal drug won't cause side effects like tattoos? You should gather your thoughts before writing- this paragraph really is a muddled mess.
With the watch, Apple will be searching for rememdies for the ink issue so they can reach the largest audience possible. Make no mistake about it, Apple wants this watch on as many wrists as they can get it.
IDK, it seems like it's such a ridiculous minority of people with sleeve tattoos. I don't know if it's worth researching how to get around tattoos just so you can market to the few thousand people with sleeve tattoos.
Numbers I found for tattoos... they don't mention sleeve tattoos specifically so it's hard to tell how many people have them. Based on 21K parlors and a few people with sleeve tattoos per parlor, I would expect the number to be in the low hundreds of thousands. Perhaps 0.01% of all of the internet connected people in the world.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/tattoo-statistics/
I think the poster mis-typed that but it makes sense to me. The tattoo in that analogy is not the side effect, ineffectiveness is the side effect, the tattoo you could say is a "condition affecting the efficacy" or something like that. But overall it still works.
For a specific example along the same lines, people who take Lipitor for high cholesterol shouldn't drink grapefruit juice because it affects the efficacy of the drug. It's their choice whether they want to drink it but they need to live with the consequences, or choose another pill that does a similar thing but lets them drink their grapefruit juice (in this analogy that other drug might be a Samsung, LG, Pebble, etc).
Tattoogate
That's not how it works. It is a problem for Apple. It's a user experience issue and one that can impact sales. Your comparison is not a good one at all.
That's not how it works. It is a problem for Apple. It's a user experience issue and one that can impact sales. Your comparison is not a good one at all.
Edit - Android/Windows devices have been out for 2-3 years now (if not longer) and apparently NOBODY noticed this issue.
In the end you have to wonder where you draw the line.
But this, I'm not sure. Tattoos are the kind of thing you'd hope they would have accounted for.
My source is Apple's acknowledgement of the issue, and the fact that they did not indicate they are working tirelessly to make the sensor work with tattoos.
I believe you've said it very well.Apple wants to sell as many watches as they can to as many people as they can reach. How is it not their problem? Apple is a business. Anything that can dissuade a customer from purchasing your product is a problem.