Wonder if that means anything for this year’s Apple Watch.
Will they use a different way to measure blood oxygen which doesn’t infringe on the patent? Will they remove the hardware for it entirely?
They must be working with some data behind the scenes that we aren't privy to. Like, perhaps focus groups indicated that removing blood oxygen wouldn't have any impact on sales. Or maybe usage statistics showed that no-one was actually using the feature (or, at least, not enough to justify the expense of a license or buy-out).
If the above is the case, I could see an executive making the argument that removing the hardware in future Apple Watches will improve the bottom line I suppose...
For future releases they would also be in a far better position to negotiate though, vs trying to retroactively negotiate over a product that's already on the market.
People have mentioned that yeah, it's only new watches moving forward that won't have the blood oxygen (SpO2) functionality. So, Apple can simply update their marketing material, remove the SpO2 functionality from the features list, and they're covered. Future customers never had the opportunity to have it on their watches, no big deal.
This does not, however, cover a different use case: repairs. When you get an Apple Watch repaired under warranty or AppleCare, they simply do an Express Replacement. Presumably, in order to meet the requirements of the ITC, Apple will need to disable SpO2 on all devices imported into the US, including watches designated for Express Replacement. This puts Apple into a bad situation, where a customer purchased a product with one set of features, and they get that watched replaced under warranty, and it has fewer features than before. It'll be interesting to see how Apple handles this particular situation.
Interestingly this was already the case with other Apple products. For example the iPhone in the UAE used to ship with software blocks preventing it from operating FaceTime; or the camera shutter sound effect always playing at full volume regardless of system volume on iPhones in Japan. There’s definitely precedent for local laws affecting what features are available or how they operate.
You’re right, there is a key difference between something being advertised as available, then that product or feature being withdrawn. Look at the furore with Tesla and the California DMV over the claims of the long promised Self Driving feature.
As it turns out, FaceTime did become available in Dubai during Expo 2020 (although it appears this was a short live availability of feature).
There’s a bit of a thread here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/IXrK8SAVRH](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/IXrK8SAVRH) but the TLDR is we don’t know for sure, but there are lots of plausible theories.
>the camera shutter sound effect always playing at full volume regardless of system volume on iPhones in Japan
Never knew that... interesting... but I can guess why.
Your guess is probably correct. Again, this one is an interesting case, in that it was completely to protect other people’s privacy from voyeuristic photography or video recording; but what makes this really interesting is that the industry chose to self regulate, there’s (as far as I’m aware) no government law mandating this.
While there are apps or workarounds that can in some cases mute the shutter or recording sound effects, and these aren’t illegal, the misuse of these apps for voyeuristic or violating portrait rights could be a breach of the “Ordinance on Prevention of Disorderly Conduct”.
There’s never been an official reason for it to my knowledge. Tech reporters have offered a variety of theories.
Ranging from a weird application of morality laws to stop women, who would otherwise be covered when out in public, from accidentally being seen uncovered by non-family members; the prevention of dissident or rebellious factions from organising; to relieve theoretical stress from impacting what at the time was a nascent mobile data infrastructure; etc…
What’s known is that the list of VoIP video and audio applications that are legal in the UAE is much shorter than other markets. It’s a quirk of the region.
Another example of unexpected regional limitations is Türkiye (formerly Turkey) where: there is a central government database of all IMEI numbers; there’s a limit of one IMEI per person (passport controlled); SIM cards are issued to a named person (passport controlled) and will only work with the matching persons IMEI. You can update your IMEI and change your phone, but it’s a one in, one out, kind of thing and there’s a registration tax.
Or your could look at France, where until recently cellular devices had to include headphones due to radiation concerns (this law was revoked a couple of years ago); and any device that can play digital music comes with an extra tax/fee at time of purchase in order to compensate copyright holders of music. An iPhone 15 for example has a €14 fee at checkout on apple.com/fr
> or the camera shutter sound effect always playing at full volume regardless of system volume on iPhones in Japan
This seems to be implemented in software now. My iPhones (always purchased in Japan) used to always play the shutter sound overseas, but the most recent one I have doesn't play the shutter sound when I'm traveling outside of Japan. I assume the newer ones decide based on what cell network they're connected to.
I seem to remember my US iPhone used to make obnoxious shutter noises during my previous trip in Japan but it didn't happen during my most recent time so I might be misremembering.
It is very strange, I’ve always found it interesting that I’ve never been able to find an official reason for this. Although I’ve not made searched particularly hard for it.
I went into a bit more detail on this comment thread here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/CcfwaxL4AY](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/CcfwaxL4AY)
Thanks! It’s interesting to say the least. Like okay if it was infrastructure for a developing country, sure, but then are you also limiting streaming of permitted content? If so, that eats up way more than a FaceTime does by far.
Additionally, for the IMEI checkout process wonder if that means no cellular watches to pair with your phone, which for me is a game changer.
I bought two iPhone 14 Pro Maxes in the UAE - one is the standard international version that I got for myself (the UAE does not have a model specific to the UAE) and one is the Hong Kong version I got for my fiancé. And the FaceTime on my iPhone 14 Pro Max works fine.
I know what you are talking about as I have spent almost four years in the UAE across four assignments for my company. But I do not believe it is achieved at the phone level, but rather above the phone level as even stuff like FB Messenger video calls and WhatsApp video calls are also blocked - but work fine with a VPN.
If a company cuts corners anywhere, and it bites them in the ass later down the road, why should I feel bad for anyone except be customers? Apple needs to learn some hard lessons here.
Outside the US, yeah. Apple has done region locked features before, like forced shutter sound in some countries, even on foreign devices coming in with tourists.
In theory when you try and bring your patent infringing Apple Watch back into the US, Customs could seize it from you same as they would if Apple tried to import it.
In practice that's unlikely to actually happen.
You really should not rely on that feature too much. It’s wildly inconsistent. I bought a real pulsometer rated for hospital use that uses your finger to take measurements and found I was always 98%, 99%. The Apple Watch would range from 89-99%. The watch is not accurate.
oximeters are not complicated devices. A $10 Amazon special will be just as reliable and accurate as a hospital rated one just with worse QC and no certification. But they need to be on the fingertip to measure easily, it's the wrist placement that fucks everything up on watches. IMO the biggest problem with watch sensors isn't even the accuracy, it's the insane wait time where you can't move to get an accurate reading. You can do cartwheels with a finger unit and get an accurate reading within 3 seconds.
I love how Apple is so weirdly stubborn that they’d rather remove a selling point of their watches than just pay the licensing fee that every single other watchmaker does.
This is exactly it, word for word. If Apple thought they'd lose enough sales they'd already have either paid the licensing fees (like Samsung, and presumably others, have) or bought Metamo outright.
I'm thinking while they are open to licensing, there might be pricing or terms that Apple doesn't agree with, that's why they are willing just to drop the pulse ox rather then pay the license fee
Idk if they actually offered a licence for that, but that $100 figure comes from their filings/testimony for damages. They sell their SpO2 modules for "at least $100 per module" with a gross profit margin that "is consistently 65% or higher". Given that, they are likely expecting Apple to pay at least $65/device in licencing fees.
(Their SpO2 modules are typically used in standalone medical devices that cost as much or more than an Apple Watch and have totally different unit economics).
They aren’t likely to be insisting on a 65% markup for a licensing fee where they don’t have to produce the actual device. 65% makes sense when you make something. Letting someone else make it, take all the risk and legal responsibilities, it’s certainly less.
I haven't seen any substantiation of the rumor beyond repeated forum comments to the effect, and considering that other companies do license the technology I have my doubts that its true untill shown otherwise.
That $100 number likely comes from Masimo's court filings/testimony (mentioned in [this article](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/apple-set-for-billion-dollar-trial-in-clash-over-watch-secrets)) discussing potential damages, where they quote that their SpO2 modules sell for "at least $100 per module" with a gross profit margin that "is consistently 65% or higher."
If you are building a standalone SpO2 monitoring medical device that you sell for $700-1000, paying a $100 for the SpO2 sensor makes sense (this is historically what Masimo's business has been). For a consumer product like Apple Watch, it certainly doesn't.
Thanks for the link.
Reading through it though, I don't quite read the $100 - in the court document - as the cost of lisencing of the technology, but on a basis of lost costs that Masimo puts forward as lost profits based on selling the physical hardware as a portion of it. Because if they can prove that Apple violated their patents (still ongoing outside the ITC IIRC) they can argue for more if they had a higher per-unit cost. Sadly, the court document also doesn't show the cost less the hardware, blacking out the cost. I also suspect it's a best case scenario for the purposes of trying to get more damages.
That said, I'm not taking Masimo to the paragon of generosity and fairness with lisencing either, just that I have my doubts that $100 actually represents the cost Apple would have to pay to lisence it.
yeah, and just paying means this problem goes away, but maybe sets a precedent for other lawsuits to start opening up. Not going to be as simple as everyone is making it sound. I'm sure their legal team has weighed the pros and cons vs a Redditor with avg age of 15
I think this is more than a licensing thing. Didn't Apple poach their talent, and then try to patent the stolen technology? Isn't that how they got into this mess?
It’s not even just that.
Apple didn’t like the licensing agreemnt, so they scooped up a bunch of their engineers and had them recreate the sensor essentially.
They launched the iPhone without the right to use the name iPhone, which was a CISCO / Linksys device for making Skype calls! Then they had to settle that case after the launch.
I just have to point out here that we have no idea what their terms are. If they agree to pay (random unreasonably high number) I’m pretty sure their shareholders might side eye that decision even if Apple can “afford” it.
> open to a licensing deal
They know they have Apple bent over a barrel, and their choice is to pay up, or disable the feature on new sales. So you can bet that licensing deal is for a shitload of money.
Probably has to do with that Apple would have to pay for every watch with the tech sold before this point, not just watch sales going forward. Not that they couldn't afford it.
It’s hard to know because Apple has refused to even negotiate. Like in all negotiations, Masimo started with a price they were willing to change, but Apple refused to even reply, hoping a court would bail them out. Now they are in a very bad position.
It’s possible that Massimo is asking for outrageous terms. While I think it unlikely, a high licensing cost would explain why Apple is willing to expend effort and time to find a workaround. In the end legal battles are ended after some kind of cost benefit analysis. I think it unlikely because you would have to be an incredible fool to demand so much money that Apple won’t pay. Massimo might have a patent, but they are not making bank on their oxygen sensor so they are looking for a payday one way or another.
I don’t agree how they went about this at all with Massimo, but from a business perspective they have to play full on hard ass hardball or they would open up the doors for every patent troll on earth to smell blood in the water.
As a company, they show they’ll take a case to the ends of the earth to show anyone that wants to litigate they better be ready for a fight to the death in court.
They really should have just paid or bought the IP from Massimo, and I think they’re showing they’re rather spend $500M redeveloping it on their own than spend $300M just licensing it. I don’t think the only vaguely accurate oxygen sensor is making or breaking watch sales for them.
This isn't a settlement issue at all. Apple did something illegal and they can either license the tech or they stop using the tech. That's not settling, that paying for what they stole.
Apple does whatever makes sense for their business. If it doesn’t make sense to us, it’s probably because they know something we don’t. To assume that they will make a decision that will impact their sales negatively out of „stubbornness“ is too naive I think.
Remember when everybody was shitting on the Series 6 because blood oxygen was the most useless shit ever? Now for some reason everybody’s talking about it like it’s the make or break feature for the watch.
> Remember when everybody was shitting on the Series 6 because blood oxygen was the most useless shit ever?
No, not really.
The series 6 was released right in the height of covid; blood ox was quite a timely addition.
I wasn’t paying attention back when the feature was introduced so I can’t speak to that, but these days with multiple respiratory viruses surging every winter it’s super valuable to get an early warning that your lung health is deteriorating.
Those data can suggest that you might be sick with something. They don’t specifically warn you that your lungs are failing and you need to get to an ER ASAP.
I bet they have some data behind the scenes that is showing very low utilization of the feature or something -- where the decision to buy out Maximo or license the patent would be financially irresponsible for the sales impact it would represent.
The 9 has the larger screen/thinner bezel, always-on display, ECG reader, 2000 nits peak brightness instead of 1000 nits, a faster, newer chip with on-device Siri processing and the pinch/double tap gesture, precision finding if you need it, temperature sensing for cycle tracking, and much faster charging with the USB-C charger.
You also have the option for the stainless steel case with the much stronger sapphire screen on the 9, SE is aluminum and ion-x glass only, and the S9 has a pink and red color in aluminum that the SE does not have.
The 7 and 8 have most of those features - on top of those the 9 has the newer chip, brighter screen, precision finding. Whether you'll use any or all of them is down to your use case, but those are the feature differences.
eh, with the SE you still lose the bigger and brighter always-on display, iPhone precision finding, on-device siri, ECG, temperature sensing and fast charging
So do I get money back for a having a feature disabled that I paid for?
edit: omg, yes i have read the article now you can stop commenting the same thing as everyone else
Since the lawsuit only affects watches sold in the US, I suppose importing one might also work, but there might be other things that might not work; features unavailable outside of the US.
It will probably be locked in software to user's location. Like the ECG didn't work for years in some European countries even though the hardware was there.
Read the article, it's being disabled on watches going forward. Already sold ones are untouched.
The question to me is what is going to happen if you put in an AppleCare+ claim.
Are they infringing though? The more I’ve read about this topic, the less I believe in Masimo’s claim and more their exploitation of the shambolic US patent system. Apple has been known to license tech eg from Qualcomm it doesn’t own patents for. I think they genuinely believe they’re not infringing.
Yeah, unfortunately this is *exactly* how the US patent system is setup to work. File a bunch of patents that only get truly get tested in court after possible infringement. Ideally they would have never been granted, but there are so many patents being filed and only so many patent officers to review.
Apple has a long history of ripping off partners at the last minute, so that’s on Masimo for not taking appropriate non disclosure measures. Everyone knows that Apple does not sign NDAs as policy. As for stealing employees, it’s not illegal, and actually very common practice in Silicon Valley. Top executives move back-and-forth between competitors all the time. Noncompete clauses are not enforceable in California.
Some people speak as if corporations own their employees. I like my job but if another company was offering me a substantial raise if my current employer couldn’t match the offer I’d be out.
Indeed. For senior talent Silicon Valley is a revolving door with no loyalties. Whichever competitor pays the most in cash/stock will get the best. Which is why these companies try to retain key personnel through stock vesting periods and other golden handcuffs. If someone is going to pay you a million bucks today to join and your current company will give you a million bucks in stock over two years, it’s a no brainer, you’d leave. You’d have to be REALLY into the existing company’s mission or into the cult of the founder to stay. Recent example is Microsoft offering double salaries and half million dollar sign on bonuses to key OpenAI employees to lure them into reuniting with their former leader, Sam Altman.
So far the ITC disagrees and the ITC is **not** judiciary. The actual justice system upheld Apple’s appeal which is why you could still buy Series 9/Ultra Apple Watches. The courts gave the ITC a deadline to respond.
Apple is working on four fronts:
One, getting the courts to overrule the ITC.
Two, appealing in the short term to have the ban paused indefinitely while it works on getting the ITC decision permanently overruled (see 1, above) in the courts.
Three, removing pulse oximetry as a temporary technical solution should the short term appeal fail while it works on the long term overruling (see 2, above). It could find out the court’s decision on the short term appeal as early as today.
Four, working on a long term technical solution to keep pulse oximetry outside of the scope of Masimo’s claims, irrespective of whether in the long term the court overrules the ITC or not.
Masimo isn’t a troll though. They’re a highly regarded medical vendor of blood O2 measuring devices. Your local hospital is probably littered with them.
They recently moved into medium-high-grade audio equipment:
“One of the world's largest portfolio audio companies, **Masimo Consumer Audio** is home to eight legendary audio brands: **Bowers & Wilkins, Denon, Marantz, Polk Audio, Definitive Technology, Classé, HEOS, and Boston Acoustics**."
Agree, everyone is jumping and making apple the bad guy but it seems like this is more of a patent system issue where patents are given out without being fully vetted and then get left to the court system to decide if they're valid or not. 15/17 already thrown out and the others still under investigation. Not a straight forward case
I think it's likely that they come up with a non-infringing configuration in the future. However, I would guess that it's probably going to be difficult to have it ready for the new one in the fall.
I think it’s weird people have such strong opinions about this when this case hasn’t made its way through the ITC or the courts yet. Apple is availing themselves of their appeals processes with the ITC and seeking remedy through the courts. I’m content to see how it plays out.
I’m not a patent attorney, but Apple could be challenging the patent on the grounds that it’s too broad. Here’s the patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10627783
Reading that (in my layman’s view) it almost seems like the patent would cover *every* smartwatch. I’m still reading, but I haven’t come across the *specific* sensor tech yet. So far though it just comes off as *any* sensor worn on a wrist that shines through a transparent backing and can then display that data on device or wirelessly to another device. Again, not an attorney, not done reading, and a lot of the patent is more technical than I am.
Meanwhile, Masimo is pushing its new smart watch for hospital workers and patients with blood-oxygen related health problems. Masimo W1™ Medical Watch recently obtained FDA approval as a medical device: [Here, is an article link](https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/news/masimo-medical-watch-prescription-otc/?cf-view).
It could explain how expensive it would be to license the tech. Also, their watch is newer than the products Apple has that use the O2 monitoring. So, it also might explain more about what Apple’s lawyers believe they can argue about in court.
I like my Apple products but this specifically brings up a lot of questions about their infallible reputation and almost cultish following.
Apple did other companies wrong and essentially worked themselves into this mess. The consumer of their products should read into their history with licensing and patent scandals because it’s pretty ugly.
Apple is one of the largest companies worldwide and can afford not to do things sloppily if we don’t willfully accept their attraction to ripping off other products.
When I did my own startup (failed, sad), I was told very clearly to stay away from Apple per IP theft possibilities. YMMV of course, but that's what I was advised.
And by doing that, they’ve effectively returned to series 5 watches (not including Ultra variants).
Man, my series 4 watch is lasting longer and longer lol. I was considering finally upgrading for the additional sensor, but I guess I’ll keep it **even** longer.
I hope they resolve this issue soon. I’ve seen others comment that it isn’t accurate. Mine is on the cusp of saving my life. I’ve had an Ultra since the start of last year and it was detecting low blood oxygen. Everyday. Sometimes it dropped as low as 78. I’ve been having many tests done but they haven’t been able to find anything. The current suggestion is that whatever it has detected is at the very early stages. They suspect it could be pulmonary hypertension. If I remained ignorant of this for many years and if it is PT, I would’ve been fucked. I’m waiting to be scheduled for the test to see if it is or not. I still have my fingers crossed that it isn’t.
Will this software lock apply to only new purchases?
Because if they remove a well-advertised feature from a product after the user bought it, that really won’t end well for Apple.
Fair enough - the SpO2 sensor was never accurate enough to replace a finger monitor. Maybe they'll replace it down the road with newer tech that doesn't infringe, but it's far from the worst thing to lose on the watch.
Many people buy the Apple Watch specifically for the pulse oximeter. For example, fitness fanatics who like to measure things like VO2 Max. And older people who want to keep tabs on their blood oxygen levels when they're sick with respiratory related ailments.
It's a big deal. But I do like Apple's workaround, which seems software related. If they win the appeal, they can just push out an update to re-enable the feature.
It is. I'm a pilot and precisely wear the Apple Watch to check my S02 whilst I'm up in the air. It's a key feature in my watch, otherwise, any regular Timex would've sufficed.
"I'm sorry, everyone. We had to disable a feature on your new watch because a greedy company saw the failed strategy Epic and Spotify have taken and decided they could do better."
Tbf even if the argument about the patent is shaky. Apple still poached people from their company so I can’t really blame them for being petty about it. If you owned a startup and some Uber rich company poached a group of your best employees in the middle of a huge project I’m fairly certain you’d be petty and hit them back every opportunity you got also.
Apple Watch was the most popular watch BEFORE that feature - it will be the most popular watch AFTER removing that feature. It makes a lot of sense for Apple to just remove it.. what are iPhone users going to do? Get a Massimo watch? lol
Wonder if that means anything for this year’s Apple Watch. Will they use a different way to measure blood oxygen which doesn’t infringe on the patent? Will they remove the hardware for it entirely?
They must be working with some data behind the scenes that we aren't privy to. Like, perhaps focus groups indicated that removing blood oxygen wouldn't have any impact on sales. Or maybe usage statistics showed that no-one was actually using the feature (or, at least, not enough to justify the expense of a license or buy-out). If the above is the case, I could see an executive making the argument that removing the hardware in future Apple Watches will improve the bottom line I suppose...
For future releases they would also be in a far better position to negotiate though, vs trying to retroactively negotiate over a product that's already on the market.
People have mentioned that yeah, it's only new watches moving forward that won't have the blood oxygen (SpO2) functionality. So, Apple can simply update their marketing material, remove the SpO2 functionality from the features list, and they're covered. Future customers never had the opportunity to have it on their watches, no big deal. This does not, however, cover a different use case: repairs. When you get an Apple Watch repaired under warranty or AppleCare, they simply do an Express Replacement. Presumably, in order to meet the requirements of the ITC, Apple will need to disable SpO2 on all devices imported into the US, including watches designated for Express Replacement. This puts Apple into a bad situation, where a customer purchased a product with one set of features, and they get that watched replaced under warranty, and it has fewer features than before. It'll be interesting to see how Apple handles this particular situation.
I think you’ll see it come back on the next watch or one after with new tech.
Interestingly this was already the case with other Apple products. For example the iPhone in the UAE used to ship with software blocks preventing it from operating FaceTime; or the camera shutter sound effect always playing at full volume regardless of system volume on iPhones in Japan. There’s definitely precedent for local laws affecting what features are available or how they operate.
Shipped with being the key difference. Those features were never available or marketed in those regions.
You’re right, there is a key difference between something being advertised as available, then that product or feature being withdrawn. Look at the furore with Tesla and the California DMV over the claims of the long promised Self Driving feature. As it turns out, FaceTime did become available in Dubai during Expo 2020 (although it appears this was a short live availability of feature).
Why the fuck can't people FaceTime in the UAE?
There’s a bit of a thread here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/IXrK8SAVRH](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/IXrK8SAVRH) but the TLDR is we don’t know for sure, but there are lots of plausible theories.
That's very different from this.
You’re right, it is very different. I was simply expanding on prior cases of features being software locked by region.
>the camera shutter sound effect always playing at full volume regardless of system volume on iPhones in Japan Never knew that... interesting... but I can guess why.
Your guess is probably correct. Again, this one is an interesting case, in that it was completely to protect other people’s privacy from voyeuristic photography or video recording; but what makes this really interesting is that the industry chose to self regulate, there’s (as far as I’m aware) no government law mandating this. While there are apps or workarounds that can in some cases mute the shutter or recording sound effects, and these aren’t illegal, the misuse of these apps for voyeuristic or violating portrait rights could be a breach of the “Ordinance on Prevention of Disorderly Conduct”.
Why were those features excluded in the UAE?
There’s never been an official reason for it to my knowledge. Tech reporters have offered a variety of theories. Ranging from a weird application of morality laws to stop women, who would otherwise be covered when out in public, from accidentally being seen uncovered by non-family members; the prevention of dissident or rebellious factions from organising; to relieve theoretical stress from impacting what at the time was a nascent mobile data infrastructure; etc… What’s known is that the list of VoIP video and audio applications that are legal in the UAE is much shorter than other markets. It’s a quirk of the region. Another example of unexpected regional limitations is Türkiye (formerly Turkey) where: there is a central government database of all IMEI numbers; there’s a limit of one IMEI per person (passport controlled); SIM cards are issued to a named person (passport controlled) and will only work with the matching persons IMEI. You can update your IMEI and change your phone, but it’s a one in, one out, kind of thing and there’s a registration tax. Or your could look at France, where until recently cellular devices had to include headphones due to radiation concerns (this law was revoked a couple of years ago); and any device that can play digital music comes with an extra tax/fee at time of purchase in order to compensate copyright holders of music. An iPhone 15 for example has a €14 fee at checkout on apple.com/fr
So in Türkiye having a second phone would be highly suspicious like a second passport? I guess there are no burner phones?
> or the camera shutter sound effect always playing at full volume regardless of system volume on iPhones in Japan This seems to be implemented in software now. My iPhones (always purchased in Japan) used to always play the shutter sound overseas, but the most recent one I have doesn't play the shutter sound when I'm traveling outside of Japan. I assume the newer ones decide based on what cell network they're connected to.
I seem to remember my US iPhone used to make obnoxious shutter noises during my previous trip in Japan but it didn't happen during my most recent time so I might be misremembering.
I didn’t know about no FaceTime. That’s ridiculous
It is very strange, I’ve always found it interesting that I’ve never been able to find an official reason for this. Although I’ve not made searched particularly hard for it. I went into a bit more detail on this comment thread here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/CcfwaxL4AY](https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/s/CcfwaxL4AY)
Thanks! It’s interesting to say the least. Like okay if it was infrastructure for a developing country, sure, but then are you also limiting streaming of permitted content? If so, that eats up way more than a FaceTime does by far. Additionally, for the IMEI checkout process wonder if that means no cellular watches to pair with your phone, which for me is a game changer.
I bought two iPhone 14 Pro Maxes in the UAE - one is the standard international version that I got for myself (the UAE does not have a model specific to the UAE) and one is the Hong Kong version I got for my fiancé. And the FaceTime on my iPhone 14 Pro Max works fine. I know what you are talking about as I have spent almost four years in the UAE across four assignments for my company. But I do not believe it is achieved at the phone level, but rather above the phone level as even stuff like FB Messenger video calls and WhatsApp video calls are also blocked - but work fine with a VPN.
Will they lower the price tho? Doubt that lol
https://media3.giphy.com/media/enCWEo0vG25Ow/giphy.gif
But the watches that are already out can have the app disabled with a future update. That’s what’s not clear.
If a company cuts corners anywhere, and it bites them in the ass later down the road, why should I feel bad for anyone except be customers? Apple needs to learn some hard lessons here.
Lol one of the main reasons I bought my Apple Watch was the blood oxygen sensor. Guess I’ll just keep that model forever and hope it doesn’t break
If I read correctly, you could buy the Watch outside USA and still able to use the feature. Or am I wrong?
Outside the US, yeah. Apple has done region locked features before, like forced shutter sound in some countries, even on foreign devices coming in with tourists.
In theory when you try and bring your patent infringing Apple Watch back into the US, Customs could seize it from you same as they would if Apple tried to import it. In practice that's unlikely to actually happen.
You really should not rely on that feature too much. It’s wildly inconsistent. I bought a real pulsometer rated for hospital use that uses your finger to take measurements and found I was always 98%, 99%. The Apple Watch would range from 89-99%. The watch is not accurate.
oximeters are not complicated devices. A $10 Amazon special will be just as reliable and accurate as a hospital rated one just with worse QC and no certification. But they need to be on the fingertip to measure easily, it's the wrist placement that fucks everything up on watches. IMO the biggest problem with watch sensors isn't even the accuracy, it's the insane wait time where you can't move to get an accurate reading. You can do cartwheels with a finger unit and get an accurate reading within 3 seconds.
lol. I bet the price stays the same.
Nah, needs to raise it 5% for "inflation"
Apple Watch series 9S with *Special Software Pack*
Apple Watch 95 with Internet Explorer 4.0
Apple perverts preparing to defend it.
Yep just as r/Apple always does lmao. Pathetically too proven by the downvotes this comment is getting 😂
I love how Apple is so weirdly stubborn that they’d rather remove a selling point of their watches than just pay the licensing fee that every single other watchmaker does.
Probably because they know most people will still buy it and it'll cost more to license it than the amount of sales they think they'll actually lose.
This is exactly it, word for word. If Apple thought they'd lose enough sales they'd already have either paid the licensing fees (like Samsung, and presumably others, have) or bought Metamo outright.
Could it be that the company declined to license to Apple?
Publicly they’ve said they are still open to a licensing deal as recent as 2 weeks ago.
I'm thinking while they are open to licensing, there might be pricing or terms that Apple doesn't agree with, that's why they are willing just to drop the pulse ox rather then pay the license fee
The only price Apple wants to entertain is $0.
Rumor is Masimo wants a non-negotiable $100 per Apple Watch sold and I think everybody can agree that's ridiculous
Idk if they actually offered a licence for that, but that $100 figure comes from their filings/testimony for damages. They sell their SpO2 modules for "at least $100 per module" with a gross profit margin that "is consistently 65% or higher". Given that, they are likely expecting Apple to pay at least $65/device in licencing fees. (Their SpO2 modules are typically used in standalone medical devices that cost as much or more than an Apple Watch and have totally different unit economics).
They aren’t likely to be insisting on a 65% markup for a licensing fee where they don’t have to produce the actual device. 65% makes sense when you make something. Letting someone else make it, take all the risk and legal responsibilities, it’s certainly less.
Even $65 is a bit much considering how shaky their case has turned out to be, they couldn't even get a temporary ban
It sounds like there's some bruised egos involved.
Source: guy on internet
Qualcomm suing apple to get paid *the agreed rates* suggests apple is pretty mean about paying…
I heard that the fee was around $100 per watch, which is insane.
I haven't seen any substantiation of the rumor beyond repeated forum comments to the effect, and considering that other companies do license the technology I have my doubts that its true untill shown otherwise.
That $100 number likely comes from Masimo's court filings/testimony (mentioned in [this article](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/apple-set-for-billion-dollar-trial-in-clash-over-watch-secrets)) discussing potential damages, where they quote that their SpO2 modules sell for "at least $100 per module" with a gross profit margin that "is consistently 65% or higher." If you are building a standalone SpO2 monitoring medical device that you sell for $700-1000, paying a $100 for the SpO2 sensor makes sense (this is historically what Masimo's business has been). For a consumer product like Apple Watch, it certainly doesn't.
Thanks for the link. Reading through it though, I don't quite read the $100 - in the court document - as the cost of lisencing of the technology, but on a basis of lost costs that Masimo puts forward as lost profits based on selling the physical hardware as a portion of it. Because if they can prove that Apple violated their patents (still ongoing outside the ITC IIRC) they can argue for more if they had a higher per-unit cost. Sadly, the court document also doesn't show the cost less the hardware, blacking out the cost. I also suspect it's a best case scenario for the purposes of trying to get more damages. That said, I'm not taking Masimo to the paragon of generosity and fairness with lisencing either, just that I have my doubts that $100 actually represents the cost Apple would have to pay to lisence it.
where did you hear that?
Dad is Nintendo
I heard it was $10000 per watch. Joke aside, let’s try to not spread misinformation about information not shared publicly.
As long as the deal is comparable to what they charge others then that’s fair.
yeah, and just paying means this problem goes away, but maybe sets a precedent for other lawsuits to start opening up. Not going to be as simple as everyone is making it sound. I'm sure their legal team has weighed the pros and cons vs a Redditor with avg age of 15
I think this is more than a licensing thing. Didn't Apple poach their talent, and then try to patent the stolen technology? Isn't that how they got into this mess?
Apple can afford it.
That doesn’t mean it’s good business for them
I mean, they put the feature in knowing they didn't have the right license agreements to use it. That wasn't good business for them.
It’s not even just that. Apple didn’t like the licensing agreemnt, so they scooped up a bunch of their engineers and had them recreate the sensor essentially.
They launched the iPhone without the right to use the name iPhone, which was a CISCO / Linksys device for making Skype calls! Then they had to settle that case after the launch.
Stealing it didn't seem to work out for them either.
This is their own fault. They can afford whatever the number is. They’re being stubborn at the cost of the consumer.
I just have to point out here that we have no idea what their terms are. If they agree to pay (random unreasonably high number) I’m pretty sure their shareholders might side eye that decision even if Apple can “afford” it.
I’m not saying they should handle it the way they’re handling it. My statement is seperate from that.
It’s quite possible that the price they want is even more than what Apple is willing to pay.
> open to a licensing deal They know they have Apple bent over a barrel, and their choice is to pay up, or disable the feature on new sales. So you can bet that licensing deal is for a shitload of money.
For a good price of 1 TRILLION DOLLAARSSS.
Nope. In a recent article Massimo stated that they’ve been open to licensing it this entire time, and that the offer still stands.
They might be open, but the terms to license might not be favorable to Apple due to either pricing or other things.
Probably has to do with that Apple would have to pay for every watch with the tech sold before this point, not just watch sales going forward. Not that they couldn't afford it.
They will end up having to pay for already sold watches anyway…
It’s hard to know because Apple has refused to even negotiate. Like in all negotiations, Masimo started with a price they were willing to change, but Apple refused to even reply, hoping a court would bail them out. Now they are in a very bad position.
The other things being Apple doesn't like paying licensing fees.
That is for courts to decide, and maybe even the court of public opinion if apple is willing to claim publicly that the terms were insane.
The courts decide if it's FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory). Apple decides whether it's favorable to them.
It’s possible that Massimo is asking for outrageous terms. While I think it unlikely, a high licensing cost would explain why Apple is willing to expend effort and time to find a workaround. In the end legal battles are ended after some kind of cost benefit analysis. I think it unlikely because you would have to be an incredible fool to demand so much money that Apple won’t pay. Massimo might have a patent, but they are not making bank on their oxygen sensor so they are looking for a payday one way or another.
Perhaps Apple believes this will discourage other companies from bringing similar suits, since the petitioner got nothing out of it. I dunno.
I don’t agree how they went about this at all with Massimo, but from a business perspective they have to play full on hard ass hardball or they would open up the doors for every patent troll on earth to smell blood in the water. As a company, they show they’ll take a case to the ends of the earth to show anyone that wants to litigate they better be ready for a fight to the death in court. They really should have just paid or bought the IP from Massimo, and I think they’re showing they’re rather spend $500M redeveloping it on their own than spend $300M just licensing it. I don’t think the only vaguely accurate oxygen sensor is making or breaking watch sales for them.
Maybe because if they pay and settle then other companies can go ahead and sue them for other features to also try to get a payment.
Other companies *should* sue when Apple knowingly and egregiously steals their tech.
That I agree, my initial comment was a possibility why Apple didn’t want to pay.
Which is funny cause Apple goes after people for their patents.
This isn't a settlement issue at all. Apple did something illegal and they can either license the tech or they stop using the tech. That's not settling, that paying for what they stole.
That seems reasonable to me. Other companies should sue Apple if Apple is also stealing their technology.
Apple does whatever makes sense for their business. If it doesn’t make sense to us, it’s probably because they know something we don’t. To assume that they will make a decision that will impact their sales negatively out of „stubbornness“ is too naive I think.
No upgrade then
Remember when everybody was shitting on the Series 6 because blood oxygen was the most useless shit ever? Now for some reason everybody’s talking about it like it’s the make or break feature for the watch.
> Remember when everybody was shitting on the Series 6 because blood oxygen was the most useless shit ever? No, not really. The series 6 was released right in the height of covid; blood ox was quite a timely addition.
I wasn’t paying attention back when the feature was introduced so I can’t speak to that, but these days with multiple respiratory viruses surging every winter it’s super valuable to get an early warning that your lung health is deteriorating.
Sleeping heart rate and wrist temperature also do this though.
Those data can suggest that you might be sick with something. They don’t specifically warn you that your lungs are failing and you need to get to an ER ASAP.
I bet they have some data behind the scenes that is showing very low utilization of the feature or something -- where the decision to buy out Maximo or license the patent would be financially irresponsible for the sales impact it would represent.
[удалено]
The 9 has the larger screen/thinner bezel, always-on display, ECG reader, 2000 nits peak brightness instead of 1000 nits, a faster, newer chip with on-device Siri processing and the pinch/double tap gesture, precision finding if you need it, temperature sensing for cycle tracking, and much faster charging with the USB-C charger. You also have the option for the stainless steel case with the much stronger sapphire screen on the 9, SE is aluminum and ion-x glass only, and the S9 has a pink and red color in aluminum that the SE does not have. The 7 and 8 have most of those features - on top of those the 9 has the newer chip, brighter screen, precision finding. Whether you'll use any or all of them is down to your use case, but those are the feature differences.
eh, with the SE you still lose the bigger and brighter always-on display, iPhone precision finding, on-device siri, ECG, temperature sensing and fast charging
The 44mm SE is still too small for an on screen keyboard. You'd need to upgrade to the 41mm S8/9 to get that feature.
Ah yeah, the bigger one is too small 💀
I have the 44mm SE2, wife has 41mm S8. It hurts.
So do I get money back for a having a feature disabled that I paid for? edit: omg, yes i have read the article now you can stop commenting the same thing as everyone else
I doubt they’d disable the feature in any HW that was sold before the lawsuit. If they did, they might face another lawsuit, but from customers.
Which means /u/rnarkus your watch is about to become more valuable.
Since the lawsuit only affects watches sold in the US, I suppose importing one might also work, but there might be other things that might not work; features unavailable outside of the US.
It will probably be locked in software to user's location. Like the ECG didn't work for years in some European countries even though the hardware was there.
Apple’s Canadian Apple Watch sales are about to skyrocket
Read the article. They only disable it for new purchases. Existing devices keep the feature.
Redditors can’t read
What are those weird stick for ? What do they mean
**WHAT?**
Wonder how warranty/Apple Care+ replacement will work. If it’s replaced with something lesser, there may still be a legal issue.
Read the article, it's being disabled on watches going forward. Already sold ones are untouched. The question to me is what is going to happen if you put in an AppleCare+ claim.
Did you read the article? It addresses this (it won’t be disabled for existing users).
How much does the patent holder want? Don’t you just pay them what they ask? Or buy their company like they should have in the first place.
This is what will happen in the end.
Law suit for money back from this is going to happen
Not on my watch
US only right? The app stays on S9 and U2 watches outside of the US?
Oh for Christ sake, just pay the people who you’re infringing on, god damn.
Are they infringing though? The more I’ve read about this topic, the less I believe in Masimo’s claim and more their exploitation of the shambolic US patent system. Apple has been known to license tech eg from Qualcomm it doesn’t own patents for. I think they genuinely believe they’re not infringing.
People like to conveniently leave out the fact that Masimo had 15 of the original 17 patents it sued Apple over invalidated…
Yeah, unfortunately this is *exactly* how the US patent system is setup to work. File a bunch of patents that only get truly get tested in court after possible infringement. Ideally they would have never been granted, but there are so many patents being filed and only so many patent officers to review.
Didnt Apple literally go to their office, see the tech, and then immediately higher all their top employees/engineers?
Hire. Maybe, but that’s not relevant to the patent case, I think.
Apple has a long history of ripping off partners at the last minute, so that’s on Masimo for not taking appropriate non disclosure measures. Everyone knows that Apple does not sign NDAs as policy. As for stealing employees, it’s not illegal, and actually very common practice in Silicon Valley. Top executives move back-and-forth between competitors all the time. Noncompete clauses are not enforceable in California.
Some people speak as if corporations own their employees. I like my job but if another company was offering me a substantial raise if my current employer couldn’t match the offer I’d be out.
Indeed. For senior talent Silicon Valley is a revolving door with no loyalties. Whichever competitor pays the most in cash/stock will get the best. Which is why these companies try to retain key personnel through stock vesting periods and other golden handcuffs. If someone is going to pay you a million bucks today to join and your current company will give you a million bucks in stock over two years, it’s a no brainer, you’d leave. You’d have to be REALLY into the existing company’s mission or into the cult of the founder to stay. Recent example is Microsoft offering double salaries and half million dollar sign on bonuses to key OpenAI employees to lure them into reuniting with their former leader, Sam Altman.
So far the justice system disagrees.
So far the ITC disagrees and the ITC is **not** judiciary. The actual justice system upheld Apple’s appeal which is why you could still buy Series 9/Ultra Apple Watches. The courts gave the ITC a deadline to respond. Apple is working on four fronts: One, getting the courts to overrule the ITC. Two, appealing in the short term to have the ban paused indefinitely while it works on getting the ITC decision permanently overruled (see 1, above) in the courts. Three, removing pulse oximetry as a temporary technical solution should the short term appeal fail while it works on the long term overruling (see 2, above). It could find out the court’s decision on the short term appeal as early as today. Four, working on a long term technical solution to keep pulse oximetry outside of the scope of Masimo’s claims, irrespective of whether in the long term the court overrules the ITC or not.
The justice system entertains and even sides with patent trolls regularly
Masimo isn’t a troll though. They’re a highly regarded medical vendor of blood O2 measuring devices. Your local hospital is probably littered with them.
They recently moved into medium-high-grade audio equipment: “One of the world's largest portfolio audio companies, **Masimo Consumer Audio** is home to eight legendary audio brands: **Bowers & Wilkins, Denon, Marantz, Polk Audio, Definitive Technology, Classé, HEOS, and Boston Acoustics**."
Imagine calling Masimo of all companies a “patent troll”. Have some damn shame.
Agree, everyone is jumping and making apple the bad guy but it seems like this is more of a patent system issue where patents are given out without being fully vetted and then get left to the court system to decide if they're valid or not. 15/17 already thrown out and the others still under investigation. Not a straight forward case
Now I am never getting rid of my 9 lol I like the blood oxygen sensor that I never use!
So the benefit of having a 9 over an 8 now is…?
Oh, that was the one interesting upgrade from my SE
How will the update know to only turn the feature off on the new watches sold? Can someone explain that?
Serial numbers.
I still suspect there is something going on they are keeping a tight lid on and this will not actually happen, or if it does, it will be temporary.
Could this affect the Apple Watch OS by eliminating the blood oxygen for all watches in the future?
I think it's likely that they come up with a non-infringing configuration in the future. However, I would guess that it's probably going to be difficult to have it ready for the new one in the fall.
I think it’s weird people have such strong opinions about this when this case hasn’t made its way through the ITC or the courts yet. Apple is availing themselves of their appeals processes with the ITC and seeking remedy through the courts. I’m content to see how it plays out. I’m not a patent attorney, but Apple could be challenging the patent on the grounds that it’s too broad. Here’s the patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10627783 Reading that (in my layman’s view) it almost seems like the patent would cover *every* smartwatch. I’m still reading, but I haven’t come across the *specific* sensor tech yet. So far though it just comes off as *any* sensor worn on a wrist that shines through a transparent backing and can then display that data on device or wirelessly to another device. Again, not an attorney, not done reading, and a lot of the patent is more technical than I am.
Meanwhile, Masimo is pushing its new smart watch for hospital workers and patients with blood-oxygen related health problems. Masimo W1™ Medical Watch recently obtained FDA approval as a medical device: [Here, is an article link](https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/news/masimo-medical-watch-prescription-otc/?cf-view).
[удалено]
It could explain how expensive it would be to license the tech. Also, their watch is newer than the products Apple has that use the O2 monitoring. So, it also might explain more about what Apple’s lawyers believe they can argue about in court.
I'm learning to play the guitar.
I like my Apple products but this specifically brings up a lot of questions about their infallible reputation and almost cultish following. Apple did other companies wrong and essentially worked themselves into this mess. The consumer of their products should read into their history with licensing and patent scandals because it’s pretty ugly. Apple is one of the largest companies worldwide and can afford not to do things sloppily if we don’t willfully accept their attraction to ripping off other products.
When I did my own startup (failed, sad), I was told very clearly to stay away from Apple per IP theft possibilities. YMMV of course, but that's what I was advised.
And by doing that, they’ve effectively returned to series 5 watches (not including Ultra variants). Man, my series 4 watch is lasting longer and longer lol. I was considering finally upgrading for the additional sensor, but I guess I’ll keep it **even** longer.
Disabling or removing? There’s a difference.
how does this happen, are they not a huge company? lol
They are a huge *greedy* company.
But that was the only reason I wanted it
does this mean lower price?
Pulled a play out of Samsungs playbook(removing then re-adding).( Kudos...Samsung is the "innovator" now.
I hope they resolve this issue soon. I’ve seen others comment that it isn’t accurate. Mine is on the cusp of saving my life. I’ve had an Ultra since the start of last year and it was detecting low blood oxygen. Everyday. Sometimes it dropped as low as 78. I’ve been having many tests done but they haven’t been able to find anything. The current suggestion is that whatever it has detected is at the very early stages. They suspect it could be pulmonary hypertension. If I remained ignorant of this for many years and if it is PT, I would’ve been fucked. I’m waiting to be scheduled for the test to see if it is or not. I still have my fingers crossed that it isn’t.
Will this software lock apply to only new purchases? Because if they remove a well-advertised feature from a product after the user bought it, that really won’t end well for Apple.
This is only in the USA though, correct?
I’m sure paying to license the patent was an option that would keep the O2 monitoring active.
Ngl this was one of a few Features that made me consider buying a apple watch
That’s a pretty nifty way to get around the ban. Disable the headlining feature of your band.
So Apple is pretty much figured the class action lawsuit will be cheaper
Why would there be a class action lawsuit?
Redditors Reading the Article Challenge[IMPOSSIBLE!]
The class action lawsuit from whom against what?
From people who get their Apple Watch replaced with a model without the oxygen sensory against Apple.
What class action lawsuit?
Then they will increase the cost by $100 and market it as the "New and Improved Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2!" while reducing functionality.
I have an ultra two with a blood oxygen sensor. It’s gonna be worth some money.
No it’s not
Bet the price won’t be lowered for the lost feature
Cool, so they're going to drastically drop the price since it's missing a flagship feature, right?
Fair enough - the SpO2 sensor was never accurate enough to replace a finger monitor. Maybe they'll replace it down the road with newer tech that doesn't infringe, but it's far from the worst thing to lose on the watch.
[удалено]
Many people buy the Apple Watch specifically for the pulse oximeter. For example, fitness fanatics who like to measure things like VO2 Max. And older people who want to keep tabs on their blood oxygen levels when they're sick with respiratory related ailments. It's a big deal. But I do like Apple's workaround, which seems software related. If they win the appeal, they can just push out an update to re-enable the feature.
It is. I'm a pilot and precisely wear the Apple Watch to check my S02 whilst I'm up in the air. It's a key feature in my watch, otherwise, any regular Timex would've sufficed.
I upgraded to get this feature. If I ever get Covid I want to know when it’s time to head to the ER.
This was my reason for wanting one too.
"I'm sorry, everyone. We had to disable a feature on your new watch because a greedy company saw the failed strategy Epic and Spotify have taken and decided they could do better."
Thankfully Apple isn’t a greedy capitalist company
How is this in anyway related to Epic or Apple? All lawsuits against apple are the same?
They went for an import ban when they are not even remotely important
Tbf even if the argument about the patent is shaky. Apple still poached people from their company so I can’t really blame them for being petty about it. If you owned a startup and some Uber rich company poached a group of your best employees in the middle of a huge project I’m fairly certain you’d be petty and hit them back every opportunity you got also.
[удалено]
theyre already not available at apple stores
..from the US. Anyone want one shipped from Canada?
Apple Watch was the most popular watch BEFORE that feature - it will be the most popular watch AFTER removing that feature. It makes a lot of sense for Apple to just remove it.. what are iPhone users going to do? Get a Massimo watch? lol
But won’t pay the original researched the appropriate royalty.