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 Says iOS 18.6.1 is Coming Today
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple knew what they were doing. They tried, intentionally, using Masimo's tech without paying and got caught...and for those of those of us who work in healthcare, they are far from obscure.
I have no sympathy, whatsoever. You want to sue someone? Sue Apple; they are the one that screwed everyone over.
I made a choice myself, and just dropped the Apple Watch altogether.
Last edited:
Obscure Company? They are the leader. This would be like if Apple was using Apple Glass this year instead of Corning Gorilla Glass and has poached engineers from Corning.
O2 in Apple watch is a novelty it literally doesn't matter how much money Apple has. They went to the lead company in O2 sensors and said we want this in our watch. After several months of working together Apple said nevermind go away but not these few engineers we are poaching we owe you nothing.
It's so blatantly wrong its not even funny. This isn't a company that doesn't make anything or tolling they make medical devices. Apple took their tech and used it in a novelty fashion and thinks that's okay. It's not. Period.
You can argue all day long on what is owed. Guess what this is all 100% on Apple. Your complaints about losing features are because of Apple.
Apple needs to make it right. Pay all of us who lost the feature or pay them to use the tech. It's as simple as that. Them continually skirting this along and oh look we made it kind of work using your phone. Nope that's not the feature I purchased.
Do the right thing Apple. Own your mistake.
What led you to the conclusion that a company that is considered the best in medical-grade blood oxygen monitoring devices is “obscure,” and is using a, “legal technicality for a quick buck?”
The fact that he LoSt A fEaTuRe He PaYeD fOr.
He doesn't care if Apple violated any rules or someone's rights as long as it's happening in his favour
Confirmed. It still works stand alone on watches that support it (and is also displayed in Health App>Respiratory). At least one of mine does. YMMV
It's curious, to say the least.
If Apple's algorithm on the iPhone differs from Masimo's, what's preventing Apple from implementing it on the Watch itself?
Does the Watch lack the computing power to do it?
Or, alternatively, was the ITC ruling narrowly targeted at O2 on the Watch reading and display abilities?
In any case, why did it take Apple so long to do this? Especially, if the infringement and ruling was centered on on-device interpretation of sensor readings?
Wonder if Masimo will refill a lawsuit arguing that the iPhone algorithm still infringes on their work…
Overall, this strikes me another example of Apple's decade-or-so long all-too-frequent m.o. of incrementalism— akin to its lame, often half-baked feature add-ons for new products— for many users, being too little, too late, offering a bit of something but basically being just adequate, not quite up to par, or even a tad lame compared to the original implementation!
Of course, there are wonderful exceptions to that pattern, but it's increasingly S.O.P. at Cupertino.
If Apple's algorithm on the iPhone differs from Masimo's, what's preventing Apple from implementing it on the Watch itself?
Does the Watch lack the computing power to do it?
Or, alternatively, was the ITC ruling narrowly targeted at O2 on the Watch reading and display abilities?
In any case, why did it take Apple so long to do this? Especially, if the infringement and ruling was centered on on-device interpretation of sensor readings?
Wonder if Masimo will refill a lawsuit arguing that the iPhone algorithm still infringes on their work…
Overall, this strikes me another example of Apple's decade-or-so long all-too-frequent m.o. of incrementalism— akin to its lame, often half-baked feature add-ons for new products— for many users, being too little, too late, offering a bit of something but basically being just adequate, not quite up to par, or even a tad lame compared to the original implementation!
Of course, there are wonderful exceptions to that pattern, but it's increasingly S.O.P. at Cupertino.
By that definition, any patent that Apple decides to rather not license would indicate a patent troll. Meaning whether a patent and the company holding it would fall into the trolling category would only depend on whether Apple decides to license it or rather omit functionalities.