thadec

The difference between Google Glass and this is what exactly?

The main issue with AR/VR headsets isn't the cost, apps or use case. The problem is that almost no one wants to strap these things to their face, especially for extended periods of time and particularly in public. When I heard about Apple entering this area I was thrilled. I bought a Google Daydream back in the day, and while it was very good for watching Netflix while on my exercise bike there is NO WAY that I would have gone out in public with it, if only because it obstructs your field of vision. So when I saw that it was just an Oculus Rift/PlayStation VR with superior internals and - we hope - a better UX/UI experience I was disappointed. I was hoping that Apple would be the ones to actually succeed with Google's other failed idea in this area - Google Glass - just as Apple succeeded with Google's failed Android Wear/WearOS concept with the Apple Watch. Sure, everyone hated Google Glass, but I chalked that up to dislike and mistrust of Google. I was thinking that were Apple to make a "similar but better" version of the same product, it would be embraced by the same crowd who hated phablets, OLED, curved screens, widgets, pro tablets with stylus and oh yeah smartwatches (the first LTE etc. smartwatches were mocked to no end) etc. when they were Samsung distinctives but fell in love with them when Apple copied them.

Yes, I know that crowd claims that "Apple didn't do it first but it right." Well I was hoping Apple would do Google Glass right, like make AR/VR glasses that looked like (oversized) Top Gun style Ray Ban sunglasses - I was an 80s kid so sue me - and provided some method of being able to see what was going on around you continuously, or at least (almost) immediately when you wanted/needed to.

Apple didn't gain much market share with Apple TV or the HomePod because - despite all the hype - they didn't fundamentally improve on what was already there. It was just the Amazon Fire TV and Amazon Echo (and the Google competitors) except way more expensive and with less functionality. Apple's offering a slightly better than what already exists VR headset except costs 5-10 times as much, it isn't going to gain much traction. I believe that app makers feel the same way. You have to remember that these things aren't new at all. They have been around since at least 2014 with some of the most successful companies in the world - not just "free services with advertising" companies like Facebook and Google but companies that actually excel at consumer products with huge customer bases like Valve (Steam), Samsung and Sony - haven't moved the needle. The Vision Pro seems so similar to previous "failed to barely successful niche" efforts that everyone is in a wait and see mode.

I haven't given up hope. As Apple has stated multiple times that they are fully invested in this area, I hope that this is merely a dev kit of sorts to get the ball rolling. And that 4 years from now, when the 5nm M2 chip that is in the current Vision Pro will be a 1nm chip, Apple will deliver the Ray Ban style glasses that I was hoping for. And if I recall correctly, Apple actually does want to solve the "you won't be able to interact with what is around you" problem. Consider the extremely underrated anime Denno Coil - yes it is on Netflix https://www.netflix.com/title/81299264 - where the AR glasses looked like laboratory goggles and it superimposed 3D images on the real world instead of shutting the wearer off from them. As a result, Denno Coil's was the opposite of Ready Player One, as where the latter was used as an escape from a (terrible) real world, Denno Coil's tech integrated it and the user with it. If Apple can pull it off, good for them. But if not, well it will join Google Cardboard and Samsung Gear VR (Samsung didn't support Google's platform because they were fighting at the time, so Samsung supported the Oculus tech instead, and the result was neither succeeding) as failures. 

leighr said:

Firstly, the ITC need to look at how all the other watchmakers, including all the cheap Chines knockoffs, are monitoring blood oxygen. If they infringe the same patents, then bans need to be implemented across the board. Too often, Apple is seen as an easy target for law suits, because they’re cashed up, but the ITC needs to ensure consistency in these matters. 

Apple doesn’t like licensing/pay-per-purchase deals, as their volume of sales becomes a cash cow for other companies, and an open door for patent trolls. If this is determined to be a legitimate patent infringement, then Apple will need to work through the options. 

That said, there are thousands of Apple patents that are infringed regularly. The whole Android OS I heavily infringes on Apple’s iPhone inventions (“and boy did we patent it” - Steve Jobs), so there needs to be consistency here. Do they ban every android device, not to mention all the other Chinese and Samsung copied products, from AirPods to laptops, that continue to be sold despite obvious copyright and patent violations. 

In the short term, Apple could simply stop the alleged patent violations and simply “estimate” the blood oxygen, until they either come up with another sensor, or buy the patent. I would expect a software update to do this in the coming weeks, and a more long term fix in about a month. 

What makes you think that other companies are infringing? Evidence that they aren't.
1. Masimo has sued over this same tech before and won (against Philips). So why would they sue Apple and not Google/FitBit, Samsung, Withings, Oura, Garmin etc? Especially the smaller outfits that don't have Apple's infamous legal teams and resources. Start with the small fry, use them to establish precedent and that makes the case against Apple much easier. Instead, out of all the companies that offer SpO2 smartwatches Apple is the only one that they are suing.
2. Not only did Samsung clearly license the tech, but they partnered with Masimo for other products also: https://investor.masimo.com/news/news-details/2020/Masimo-and-Samsung-Partner-to-Package-Masimo-SafetyNet-with-Select-Samsung-Phones-to-Speed-COVID-19-Response-Efforts/default.aspx

As for Android, "the whole Android OS I heavily infringes on Apple’s iPhone inventions" is not true and never has been. The precedent was set with Apple versus Microsoft over Windows: that you can't patent general UX/UI concepts. And it was re-established again when Microsoft tried to go after various Linux desktops that copied Windows XP (these days they mostly copy macOS). Also, what was there to patent anyway? While it is fair to say that Apple invented touchscreen smartphones, Apple didn't invent the touchscreen, or even the handheld touchscreen device. Apple also didn't invent the app store concept. They also didn't invent the "icons on a home screen" layout. That leaves two things.
A. the multitouch patent. This was made essentially worthless by this court ruling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_International (Apple patented multitouch in 2005 and the case that basically nullified it was filed in 2007)
B. the pinch-to-zoom patent. Apple lost on this issue to Samsung in 2012. Keep in mind: Apple went from trying to get the ITC to ban Samsung Android devices unless Samsung agreed to a $50 per device licensing fee - which would have meant many tens of billions paid by Samsung to Apple annually and prevented Samsung from being able to sell budget Android devices entirely - to Samsung merely having to pay Apple a few hundred million over "trade dress." And Samsung only had to pay that because they literally left a paper trail on "let's copy Apple's trade dress." Had they not done this, they would have beaten Apple in court over that just as they did everything else. And it is also why Samsung is the only company that Apple ever successfully sued despite everyone copying Apple's designs, many even more closely. While the ~$500 million that Samsung paid Apple is nothing to sneeze at, compare that to the $8 billion that Samsung was stuck with to Microsoft over using the Windows filesystem (I think NFTS) in Android devices. Samsung eventually just turned that judgment into a cross-licensing deal.  

Marvin said:

mikethemartian said:

gatorguy said:

What's the objection to sitting down at the table with Masimo and accepting their offer for a negotiation? Even the richest and most powerful of all companies should recognize when it's time to cut their losses, the lesson taken. 

My guess is spite.

It makes sense for Apple to do things in-house because they can scale better without relying on 3rd party components.

He also says Apple could have avoided the ban by making the watches/sensors in the US so that's an option Apple could use.

I wonder how companies like Fitbit are getting around it as they have blood oxygen sensors too.

The Masimo CEO says he's open to negotiating with them. I expect Apple will appeal first.

If Fitbit can get away with having blood oxygen sensors, Apple can too.

Samsung signed a number of deals with Masimo right about the time that they added SpO2 to their smartwatches: https://investor.masimo.com/news/news-details/2020/Masimo-and-Samsung-Partner-to-Package-Masimo-SafetyNet-with-Select-Samsung-Phones-to-Speed-COVID-19-Response-Efforts/default.aspx

Also Masimo already won a $466 million lawsuit against Philips over this same tech: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philips-masimo-verdict-idINKCN0HQ54W20141002/ and unlike Apple, Philips is actually a medical device manufacturer. Unfortunately for Philips, they are based in the Netherlands and not the U.S. More on this later.

There are tons of other companies who make smartwatches that offer SpO2 monitoring: Garmin, Withings, Oura (who offers it in their "smart ring"), FitBit, Google, Realme, Amazfit and OnePlus. If Amazfit can offer SpO2 in a $150 watch then it means that licensing this tech would have been cheaper than raiding Masimo for talent even if Masimo hadn't sued. So nothing to "get around." Just pay for the tech that you use like everyone else.

My guess: Apple is used to getting away with "sherlocking" like this. After the Obama administration overrode Apple's appropriation  of Samsung's wireless technology https://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/08/03/president-obama-vetoes-itc-ban-on-iphone-ipads-apple-happy-samsung-not/?sh=67f3cb488c3d on iPhones and iPads, Apple clearly thought that they could just keep doing it. The best part: the Obama administration didn't even object to the ITC's ruling against Apple itself! Instead, their rationale was that an import ban on iPhones and iPads would harm the U.S. economy. (Compare Samsung having to fork over hundreds of millions to Apple over "trade dress" but Apple getting off scot free for just taking Samsung's wireless tech.) A writer for The Verge - in the comments, not in the article - pointed out that the Biden administration would be way less likely to side with Apple over another American company like Masimo as opposed to a foreign competitor like Samsung. Note how Apple lost their patent fight against Qualcomm - no claiming otherwise as the "out of court settlement" between the two was for the terms that Qualcomm demanded in the first place - and Qualcomm is also an American company. 

And as for "doing things in-house", I know that Apple is trying to integrate as many components as possible into the SOC, but they are either going to have to come up with their own non-infringing implementations of them or license the designs from Broadcom and everybody else. 

netrox said:

I am sure Apple is working on many technological concepts, only waiting for the patents to expire and incorporate them into their devices or services. Patents are often what holds companies back - suppose there's a patent on algorithm that provides improved performance, using that patent in chip without licensing could invite lawsuits. 

Patents expire after 20 years. So the 3G patents would have expired around 2020. The 4G patents are probably going to expire in a few years, but Qualcomm switched from 4G to LTE anyway, and the LTE patents form the bulk of what is needed for 5G. Those don't expire until 2030, when it will be time to switch to 6G.