Do USA watch S10's have the blood Oxygen sensor

[JPack]

I’m sure the spO2 hardware is still in the US watches.

Similar to Australia where for years and years the TGA had not approved the ECG functionality. One day they approved it, quick update and all the watches had the ECG.

It's not similar to Australia because unlike typical regulatory processes, Apple has been denied by the ITC multiple times. Apple has run out of patent arguments.

Apple's current appeal to the Federal Circuit is a Hail Mary, arguing procedural errors by ITC and suggesting the ITC doesn't have the jurisdiction to make such a ban. Most IP litigators think Apple has a very weak case.

Apple, Too, Should Expect the Expected in Appealing Its ITC Loss to the CAFC

www.mintz.com

 

[Howard2k]

It's not similar to Australia because unlike typical regulatory processes, Apple has been denied by the ITC multiple times. Apple has run out of patent arguments.

Apple's current appeal to the Federal Circuit is a Hail Mary, arguing procedural errors by ITC and suggesting the ITC doesn't have the jurisdiction to make such a ban. Most IP litigators think Apple has a very weak case.

Apple, Too, Should Expect the Expected in Appealing Its ITC Loss to the CAFC

www.mintz.com

Apple could resolve it on a whim if they paid Massimo, it seems. They may be out of arguments but it doesn’t seem at all like they’re out of options. Contrary to a regulatory issue it seems that this is fully in their control.

 

[JPack]

Apple could resolve it on a whim if they paid Massimo, it seems. They may be out of arguments but it doesn’t seem at all like they’re out of options. Contrary to a regulatory issue it seems that this is fully in their control.

Yes, certainly. With Qualcomm, Apple chose to settle by paying $4.7 billion before the two parties even entered the courtroom. With Masimo, the two parties have pretty much exhausted the court process. This is why I suspect Apple plans to wait until 2028.

 

[ryanmp]

It's not similar to Australia because unlike typical regulatory processes, Apple has been denied by the ITC multiple times. Apple has run out of patent arguments.

Apple's current appeal to the Federal Circuit is a Hail Mary, arguing procedural errors by ITC and suggesting the ITC doesn't have the jurisdiction to make such a ban. Most IP litigators think Apple has a very weak case.

Apple, Too, Should Expect the Expected in Appealing Its ITC Loss to the CAFC

www.mintz.com

Actually it is the same.

Something stands in the way of using a hardware feature of Apple Watch, which has a potential resolution in the future.

Apple could chose to remove the hardware or keep it knowing it could be turned on a the flick of a switch in the future.

I point to Australia as a similar case where Apple did just that.

 

[deeddawg]

Apple could resolve it on a whim if they paid Massimo, it seems. They may be out of arguments but it doesn’t seem at all like they’re out of options. Contrary to a regulatory issue it seems that this is fully in their control.

Maybe, maybe not. It takes two to tango. Masimo would also need to agree to license the patent to Apple, and reportedly they haven't been open to doing so under the now-former CEO.

That could possibly now be different with the new CEO. See https://9to5mac.com/2024/09/30/here...en-feature-could-return-after-masimo-shakeup/

If licensing were offered, from Apple's standpoint they would consider the cost of such licensing against the cost of lost-sales of not doing so. Would it be worth it or would they just wait out the expiration in 2028?

I suspect the macrumors echo chamber may be inflating the actual importance of the sensor to the general public. Nobody I know personally really cares - they see it as a curiosity and the lack of the sensor would not impede their interest in upgrading when they otherwise felt it to be worthwhile. (Edit - not talking about the folks with medical conditions where blood ox readings are truly useful, but thats presumably a distinct minority of Apple Watch buyers)

 

[JPack]

Actually it is the same.

Something stands in the way of using a hardware feature of Apple Watch, which has a potential resolution in the future.

Apple could chose to remove the hardware or keep it knowing it could be turned on a the flick of a switch in the future.

I point to Australia as a similar case where Apple did just that.

No, because the ARTG listing for approval refers to the software, not hardware. The approval process couldn’t care less about the hardware. The regulatory process only cares about the data shown to consumers and whether that's reliable. Apple can tweak the software for compliance. Here’s the actual listing:

Apple Pty Ltd - Cardiac electrophysiology application software (355992)

Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) information for Apple Pty Ltd - Cardiac electrophysiology application software.

www.tga.gov.au

In complete contrast, the ITC ban is on the hardware. ITC couldn’t care less about the software. They care about how the red and green photodiodes are arranged in Apple Watch. Apple cannot tweak that to bypass Masimo's patent.

Not only that, Australia has less than 1/10 the market size of U.S., which makes it far less likely Apple would customize any hardware for that market.

 

[ryanmp]

No, because the ARTG listing for approval refers to the software, not hardware. The approval process couldn’t care less about the hardware, the regulatory process only cares about the data shown to consumers. Here’s the actual listing:

Apple Pty Ltd - Cardiac electrophysiology application software (355992)

Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) information for Apple Pty Ltd - Cardiac electrophysiology application software.

www.tga.gov.au

In complete contrast, the ITC ban is on the hardware. ITC couldn’t care less about the software. The care about how the red and green photodiodes are arranged in Apple Watch.

Not only that, Australia has less than 1/10 the market size of U.S., which makes it far less likely Apple would customize any hardware for that market.

You are still entirely missing the point.

The are the same. In both cases the hardware is still present in the device, in both cases the disabling of the functionality has happened through software, nothing to do with hardware changes. And finally in both cases (happened in Australia, pending in the US), the functionality can be restored quickly and easily through software.

 

[JPack]

You are still entirely missing the point.

The are the same. In both cases the hardware is still present in the device, in both cases the disabling of the functionality has happened through software, nothing to do with hardware changes. And finally in both cases (happened in Australia, pending in the US), the functionality can be restored quickly and easily through software.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

You seem to presume the hardware is present in both cases.

You're comparing a regulatory situation in Australia where the ECG app can be tweaked in terms of user interface, presentation, wording, notification frequency, etc. for approval. Once again, the Australian TCG approval is on the software application.

The ITC injunction is on the hardware.

 

[ryanmp]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

You seem to presume the hardware is present in both cases.

You're comparing a regulatory situation in Australia where the ECG app can be tweaked in terms of user interface, presentation, wording, notification frequency, etc. for approval. Once again, the Australian TCG approval is on the software application.

The ITC injunction is on the hardware.

Well the green LEDs (heart rate) are on the US Series 10 and the red and infrared LEDs (blood oxygen) are also on the US Series 10, so yes as best as I can see until shown otherwise, the hardware is present. Same as in the ECG case, the hardware was still present.

So doesn’t matter what the ITC injunction is about, the way Apple have resolved the issue for the time being has nothing to do with hardware.

 

[Maclver]

In the end... Apple is doing a disservice it us as customers by screwing around on this. The fact when I look at my "Vitals" in the Health App there is a blank space where the Blood Oxygen is, is just a daily reminder that I am missing out on a feature I once had. A company witha 3.5 TRILLION dollar market cap has the ability to resolve this quickly, but they are choosing not to.

I have been a long time Apple user going back to my iBook (RIP), the Apple of then is no where near the Apple we have today. I know they are a business and they are in business to make money, but when Shareholders are involved, sadly customers take the second seat. We are seeing this in full effect right now.

 

[JPack]

Maybe, maybe not. It takes two to tango. Masimo would also need to agree to license the patent to Apple, and reportedly they haven't been open to doing so under the now-former CEO.

That could possibly now be different with the new CEO. See https://9to5mac.com/2024/09/30/here...en-feature-could-return-after-masimo-shakeup/

If licensing were offered, from Apple's standpoint they would consider the cost of such licensing against the cost of lost-sales of not doing so. Would it be worth it or would they just wait out the expiration in 2028?

I suspect the macrumors echo chamber may be inflating the actual importance of the sensor to the general public. Nobody I know personally really cases - they see it as a curiosity and the lack of the sensor would not impede their interest in upgrading when they otherwise felt it to be worthwhile.

Masimo market cap today is $7.6B. Closer to $5B when this argument started. Apple spent $10B on its car project. They could have bought out M at any time.

I have no doubt Apple decided it was cheaper to fight and ultimately wait until 2028 rather than license.

 

[deeddawg]

In complete contrast, the ITC ban is on the hardware. ITC couldn’t care less about the software. They care about how the red and green photodiodes are arranged in Apple Watch. Apple cannot tweak that to bypass Masimo's patent.

Except that software disablement is apparently exactly what Apple did on the Series9 / Ultra2 and CBP was fine with it. Given that, there's no reason to think they wouldn't do the same with the Series10 and thus avoid having unique hardware in the US market.

From https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/12/apple-watch-blood-oxygen-sensor-software/ (emphasis mine)

Apple implemented a fix that turns off pulse oximetry when an Apple Watch is paired to an iPhone. Blood oxygen sensing becomes inaccessible to the user, and opening the blood oxygen app gives a warning that the feature is not available. Apple said that it hardcoded each Apple Watch at the factory with new software.

As part of the process to get approval to sell Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models without pulse oximetry enabled, Apple had to provide the code disabling the feature and test devices to Masimo. Masimo didn't want Apple to have such an easy fix, so it paired the "redesigned" Apple Watches with a jailbroken ‌iPhone‌ running an older version of iOS, and was able to get pulse oximetry working.

Masimo tried to argue that activating pulse oximetry through a jailbroken phone meant Apple had not effectively removed the feature and the devices should not be allowed to be imported in to the U.S. Masimo also tried to say that jailbreaking is "permissible, common, and readily known," but Masimo's arguments were unsuccessful. The Exclusion Order Enforcement Branch of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ultimately decided that disabling pulse oximetry in the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 was enough to avoid infringing on Masimo patents, allowing those models to be offered for sale at Apple retail stores in the U.S.

 

[deeddawg]

Masimo market cap today is $7.6B. Closer to $5B when this argument started. Apple spent $10B on its car project. They could have bought out M at any time.

I have no doubt Apple decided it was cheaper to fight and ultimately wait until 2028 rather than license.

Again, it does take two to tango. Hostile takeovers aren't generally as easy as the movies might portray. Plus Masimo was already in a proxy fight since Politan Capital secured a 9% stake and two board seats in 2022, ultimately leading to the anti-Apple CEO's exit.

Yes, given that US Apple Watch sales are estimated at about $5B/yr and the expectation (observation) that relatively few people care enough for this to affect their purchasing decision, Apple's going to have a finite appetite for what they'd pay to license the technology.

 

[deeddawg]

The fact when I look at my "Vitals" in the Health App there is a blank space where the Blood Oxygen is, is just a daily reminder that I am missing out on a feature I once had.

I’m curious how you previously used that data in the past? What actions did you take based on the readings? What behaviors did you change based on the readings?

Genuine question - I’ve not found it to be anything but a curiosity with no impact on my day to day activities

 

[Maclver]

I’m curious how you previously used that data in the past? What actions did you take based on the readings? What behaviors did you change based on the readings?

Genuine question - I’ve not found it to be anything but a curiosity with no impact on my day to day activities

I personally used it when I had Covid.

 

[JPack]

I didn't upgrade to the Series 10 due to the lack of SpO2 support so they would get more money from me, at least if the hardware is still inside and can be reactivated upon resolution of the dispute.

My understanding is that Masimo's CEO & Founder resigned a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I'm crazy but I'm holding out a tiny bit of hope that there could be a fresh round of negotiations with new leadership.

If the dispute were resolved today, chances are, you'd buy the next Watch 11 with SpO2. Most people upgrade their Watch infrequently, so Apple hasn't lost a sale, but deferred it.

The reviews and hands-on videos have all been done for Watch 10. Apple would need to reverse that with a media campaign and hope people are willing to buy a mid-cycle 10 rather than wait for 11. I'm not sure Apple is willing to put unused hardware into Watch 10 based on reactivation and selling a mid-cycle product.

 

[deeddawg]

If the dispute were resolved today, chances are, you'd buy the next Watch 11 with SpO2. Most people upgrade their Watch infrequently, so Apple hasn't lost a sale, but deferred it.

The reviews and hands-on videos have all been done for Watch 10. Apple would need to reverse that with a media campaign and hope people are willing to buy a mid-cycle 10 rather than wait for 11. I'm not sure Apple is willing to put unused hardware into Watch 10 based on reactivation and selling a mid-cycle product.

From a hardware standpoint, the SpO2 is embedded in the LED/receiver array on the back of the watch and isn't so much a separate sensor they could just choose not to include.

From Blood Oxygen app on Apple Watch:

The Apple Watch back crystal includes an array of light emitter and detector apertures configured as a “reflectance” sensor; emitted light scatters through the perfused tissues beneath Apple Watch, with a portion of that light reemerging and striking photodetectors along the same surface. The light sources used by the Blood Oxygen app and shared with other health features on Apple Watch comprise red, IR, and green LEDs operating at wavelengths of approximately 660, 850, and 525 nm, respectively

With the S10, Apple essentially had two choices:
(a) continue to use the existing multisensor back crystal hardware and disable SpO2 via software for the US market, or
(b) Design, test, and build separate new back crystal sensor package - including separate production line - just for watches sold to the US market. All in a few short months.

I'd speculate that it'd be cheaper and easier just to continue using the tried-and-true sensor package they've been using since Series6 rather than rush a separate sensor package out the door. I'm not sure that they'd save enough money on components to justify changing the hardware.

 

[CPmav]

I'd speculate that it'd be cheaper and easier just to continue using the tried-and-true sensor package they've been using since Series6 rather than rush a separate sensor package out the door. I'm not sure that they'd save enough money on components to justify changing the hardware.

This exactly. It doesn’t make any sense from a supply chain perspective to make changes, especially when it can just be disabled through software.