Meh. I checked my level when I first got this ability. It was 99%. Just checked again. It was 99%. I'm good.
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.
Apple May Sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 Watches Without Blood Oxygen App in U.S. Amid Patent Dispute
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. And if apple does that, i am pretty sure it will lead to a class action lawsuit.
I read the history of using pulse metering for Oxygen levels, so looking at the wide field of pulse oximeters out there being used, I selected Phillips to see how they made theirs. It was done though a partnership with Masimo.
So Apple at best need to look at the history and see if there is any wiggle room? Given the proliferation of this technology that looks like a lot is Masimo based, its pretty much an error on Apples part to not license it for a few bucks, and just stop the argument. It also predates anything that Apple could have ever developed recently. Below is from Wiki.
======
The first pulse oximetry was developed in 1972 by Japanese bioengineers Takuo Aoyagi and Michio Kishi at Japanese medical electronic equipment manufacturer Nihon Kohden, using the ratio of red to infrared light absorption of pulsating components at the measuring site. Nihon Kohden manufactured the first pulse oximeter, Ear Oximeter OLV-5100. Surgeon Susumu Nakajima and his associates first tested the device in patients, reporting it in 1975.[48] However, Nihon Kohden suspended the development of pulse oximetry and did not apply for a basic patent of pulse oximetry except in Japan, which facilitated further development and utilization of pulse oximetry later in U.S. In 1977, Minolta commercialized the first finger pulse oximeter OXIMET MET-1471. In the U.S., the first pulse oximetry was commercialized by Biox in 1980
By 1987, the standard of care for the administration of a general anesthetic in the U.S. included pulse oximetry.
in 1995, Masimo introduced Signal Extraction Technology (SET) that could measure accurately during patient motion and low perfusion by separating the arterial signal from the venous and other signals. Since then, pulse oximetry manufacturers have developed new algorithms to reduce some false alarms during motion,[53] such as extending averaging times or freezing values on the screen, but they do not claim to measure changing conditions during motion and low perfusion. So there are still important differences in performance of pulse oximeters during challenging conditions.[18] Also in 1995, Masimo introduced perfusion index, quantifying the amplitude of the peripheral plethysmograph waveform. Perfusion index has been shown to help clinicians predict illness severity and early adverse respiratory outcomes in neonates,[54][55][56] predict low superior vena cava flow in very low birth weight infants,[57] provide an early indicator of sympathectomy after epidural anesthesia,[58] and improve detection of critical congenital heart disease in newborns
Yes, it's a software fix. Only changes in software were necessary.
A hardware fix would have required physical changes.
This is the question I have too and not clear from article I read on CNN and here. Are they going to cripple the WatchOS functionality for all previously sold AppleWatches? Or just new sales? Might Apple conclude that they can somehow make Massimo whole with a license and see that as a smart business decision?
And they’ll continue to sell the watch at the same price as the one that has the functionality enabled because the hardware is the same?
Again, unless apple wants a big class action lawsuit there is zero chance they screw with any watches already sold.
A "fix" implies the original feature in question is maintained. Masimo agrees a device with the blood oxygen feature must have the software installed. They're fine if Apple wants to delete the software, which kills the entire feature.
This is definitely not a fix. Not unless you're a used car salesman.
So. They sold us a watch with pulse oximetry and now they want to remove the feature to ensure they don't have to pay for something they should have paid for. Doesn't fill me with much faith in Apple or its products. Perhaps we should be asking them about non supply of features sold.
Wrong. Apple has the coin to do it and fight lawsuit or even settle.
I love how patent trolls and lawyers prioritize money over possibly saving human lives. Apple should just pay the ransom and settle.
As a physician I am happy they are turning it off, since it basically is a mysterious number to non-physicians, Understanding what that number means and what to do about it except in VERY SPECIFIC situations (like you are in an airplane that depressurizes like the AL flight that popped the door plug) is meaningless to most patients. There are also a couple of life threatening situations where it fools you that all is fine when your life is in imminent danger, the most classical one you learn in medical school is CO poisoning since CO shows as "oxygen" to the sensor and patients will read 100% when in fact they need oxygen to try and force the CO off the hemoglobin (we measure CO2/CO via a arterial blood gas). Additionally the other day my staff told me an asthmatic was hypoxemic with a low oxygen saturation but was now showing 97% after they'd given him a nebulizer before i could get into the room (but they didn't understand an asthmatic absolutely should not be hypoxemic, their problem is exhaling not inhaling and nothing should interfere with absorbing oxygen in asthma, and that represented a huge emergency and that the fact that they magically made the number better meant nothing). I get that from nursing all the time (patient is is respiratory distress but their sats are "ok," so it's not that serious, where that's rarely the issue, you don't breathe from low oxygen but from high CO2 (makes your blood acidic which drives the sensor in your brain) so not helpful in any situations (there are of course many situations where it matters such as heart failure, pulmonary embolism, etc but there is a reason we train for a long time to understand those numbers properly)
Who is the patent troll in this situation?
Masimo isn't a direct party to this case. It's between ITC v Apple with input from US Customs and Border Patrol.
In this case, it doesn't really matter what Masimo believes.
What about sold watches ? Are they going to cripple them too ?
They should compensate customers because most will not really be aware that this feature has been crossed off.
And instead of compensating customers and losing money, maybe it's just better to compensate the original company ? We'll probably hear the real story in court - but Apple themselves know what they did and what they didn't do.
They should compensate customers because most will not really be aware that this feature has been crossed off.
And instead of compensating customers and losing money, maybe it's just better to compensate the original company ? We'll probably hear the real story in court - but Apple themselves know what they did and what they didn't do.
Its more than just money. The brand would take a Severe hit.
So again. I would be absolutely shocked if they screw with watches that were already sold.
This case is between ITC and Apple. Masimo is not a direct party to the case.
AFAIK, ITC can only order products from being imported and sold by Apple. They have no jurisdiction over others including people.
What happens to the customers who had the feature originally on their watch but need a replacement?
A fix fixes a problem.
What was the problem in this case? The import and sales ban imposed by ITC
Did this change fix that problem? It appears so according to the story.
Where did the fix occur? In software.
So, in my book, a software fix which fixed Apple's problem caused by ITC.
its' been said before (mid Dec timeframe) that warranty and/or AC+ coverage Apple can replace the watch.
But this is all up in the air for now, the appeals court ruling and then Apple's response remains to be seen ...
Already sold watches are not affected. New watches being sold beginning TBD will have the software functionality removed...
WTF is wrong with AAPL nowadays? They don´t innovate. That has been for sure since 2018. But they are falling behind..