AppleZulu

Blood oxygen sensing shows no sign of returning to Apple Watch any time soon

AppleZulu

August 2

snookie said:

The cost to license it is trivial yet Apple would rather screw over their customers than pay it. While charging us premium prices for everything.

If Apple feels this is a truly bogus patent, caving to Masimo opens them up to more opportunist bogus claims. Paying off those endless claims would then screw over their customers who would foot the bill.

Blood oxygen sensing shows no sign of returning to Apple Watch any time soon

AppleZulu

August 1

cia said:

To be clear, all Apple Watches worldwide have the blood o2 hardware, ONLY the US versions have it deactivated via software. I'm in the United States, and currently on my wrist is an Apple Watch 10 (wifi) that I bought in Canada last fall and its blood o2 sensor is working fine here in the states. The only catch is if I had a hardware issue and had to get warranty service here, they would swap it for a US version that doesn't have the blood o2 sensor activated. I would have to go to an Apple Store in Canada to get a swap that had the blood o2 sensor activated. US and Canada have different model numbers, that's what tells the software to turn on or off the blood O2 sensor. The hardware is identical.

If you are close to our southern border you could probably buy one in Mexico also and the blood o2 sensor would work as well.

/edit I had to go dig around to find the model number differences but:
US Apple Watch Series 10 GPS 46mm Jet Black no o2 sensor is: MWWQ3LW/A.
Same config but from Canada w/ working o2: MWWQ3AM/A
@AppleZulu

Ah, hadn't thought about the warranty service angle. Still, I assume there's no problem with getting the Apple Care coverage, just that service rendered in the US could result in a sensor-deactivated replacement model.

Apple is probably stuck with iPhone manufacture in India

AppleZulu

July 31

Of course, all but lost in all of this is the fact that remains: most of Trump's tariff declarations are not legal. This power belongs to Congress.

Also, whatever happened to that Trump phone that was going to be made in the USA by now, and then wasn't going to be made in the USA? How are these tariffs going to affect the Trump phone? Does it exist? Does Trump Mobile still exist?

Only the base iPhone 17 may escape a $50 price hike

AppleZulu

July 31

themind said:

This is a VERY difficult thing to say as a 20+ year apple fan and UK user but if apple "spreads the pain" of Trumps tariffs around the world then I'm out, I'll leave the apple ecosystem and that's from someone who is VERY invested in it. Apple/USA, you have danced with the Trump devil and if the impact is on the rest of the world then expect the rest of the world to have long memories. Apple was, possibly still is, seen as one of the good guys of tech but that view is wearing thinner. At least in the UK/Europe several US tech companies are seen with distain for cosying up to Trump, paying for his inauguration etc, it's a dangerous path. Tesla drivers sporting "pre Trump Tesla" bumper stickers. Meta and X getting rid of any semblance of fact checking etc. As I say, I'm very much an apple fan but if Apple tries to make us pay for Trumps tariffs on the USA then Apples market share in the UK/Erope is going to go south.

Politically, sure, I’d like to see Apple charge the entire tariff cost directly to US consumers, marked clearly on the price tag as “Trump Tariff Tax.” That would be the most transparent action, and would make a valid point clear.

The problem, of course, is that Apple is a business, and spreading excessive costs from any one country across the price of all devices sold worldwide will probably have less net negative effect on sales than it would if they left those costs focused in individual countries. I would speculate that this has been the practice already, long before Trump’s tariffs were a thing.

Apple hits back at DOJ antitrust suit paragraph by paragraph in scathing response

AppleZulu

July 30

VictorMortimer said:

Before you whine about the Mango Mussolini's DoJ, remember that this suit is something that was started during a sane administration to give US more rights to the products WE own.

It doesn't go far enough, we need the right to install whatever software we see fit on OUR devices without Apple's permission or interference. And while some of the issues have already been resolved, they haven't all been, and they definitely need to be resolved in OUR favor, not Apple's favor.

You already have that right. You can buy an Android phone. Some of us don’t want to lose the choice we currently have to buy a phone that comes with a secure, bespoke operating system. Forcing Apple to be more like its competitors reduces consumer choice.

The iPhone and iOS are a single thing. iOS is the first operating system designed from the ground up to always be connected to the internet. The App Store was designed to make third-party software possible, while still maintaining the high level of security and stability of the new OS. This closed system was specifically created to avoid the mess prior operating systems became as stand-alone computers were suddenly all being connected to a network.

The first people upset about Apple’s new approach were the now un-needed antivirus companies that wanted root access to iOS so they could sell their third party apps to prevent other third party apps from also getting root access to iOS. Should Apple be forced to open up root access to iOS just for the “freedom” to choose antivirus software to “guard” against the vulnerabilities root access would then allow? Apple’s iOS design that closed off root access entirely from the start wasn’t anti-competitive, it just eliminated the problem anti-virus programs were designed to “fix.”

The fight over “freedom” to install third-party apps is just an extension of the same issue. Opening iOS to side-loading creates vulnerabilities that don’t currently exist. The app developers clamoring for this want access to iPhone users. Currently they have to follow privacy and security rules to get that access, and currently iPhone users can use those apps with the knowledge those requirements are being enforced. If Apple is forced to allow side-loading those app developers will quickly take advantage of that, forcing iPhone users to either stop using those apps or lose the privacy and security protections they currently have. The result is less consumer choice, not more.

I want to continue to have the choice to buy a device built around Apple’s high level of security. Forcing Apple to undo that and go back decades to return to a pre-internet model isn’t in our favor or Apple’s favor. The only people that serves are the ones who want unfettered access to our personal data and money.