Apple's alleged monopolistic practices called "rotten to the core" in Apple Watch ECG...

[m4a4]

I’m calling BS. You cannot be anti-competitive on your own device, you are not even required to open your devices up to outside entities. As I’ve said before, alivecor tried to restrict competition by suing on what is essentially standard use of existing technology (ECG), then they offered no distinct function for their product other than the base product (a violation of the contract with Apple to allow use). They could have negated the whole thing by not suing, providing additional functionality, and contracting with Apple to “git er done”

the distinction here is that you appear to allege that there is an obligation to provide access on a non- unique device that only has about 35% market share , so clearly not a monopoly. And provide access in perpetuity, absent a contract to do so, so when an API changed there was a breach (but a breach of nothing as it turns out). Right?

me: no obligation to deliver, developers agreement specifies term of app inclusion

you: A company creating a product must allow third parties access and in perpetuity

You most certainly can be anti-competitive on your own platform. Precedence says otherwise. And it's worse when if you create a marketplace that you yourself are a part of (and are above the rules).

But you don't care. And I don't care to argue further against a fanboy. I know all the lines; Apple is perfect, the earth is flat, you can go to Android, the App store is fair for everyone ;P

But in all seriousness, it's the same blind loyalty to a trillion dollar brand. As I said, there's a good reason why so many antitrust cases are being brought against Apple. And it's not because they're doing it for the fun of it...

 

[CommonSenseTech]

Yes, that is called being anti-competitive. Do you know what that means and how it's illegal? It doesn't sound like it.

I’m not a lawyer so I won’t comment on the law (although most Internet forums talking about monopoly law are filled with disinfo in my view).

I would note that a major part of being competitive is making a product that isn’t garbage. When you demand that your clunky, redundant product be propped up through halting development of a superior experience, algorithm and data model, that’s not being competitive in the least.

“Anti-competition prevention law” wasn’t designed to allow laggards with crap products to coast on others’ coattails. There are plenty of medical and health device vendors who manage to increment their products to Apple’s roadmap just fine. Apple isn’t under any obligation to have a third party dictate the feature roadmap of their core product simply because that third party is unable to keep up with the pace of innovation in the category.

 

[GregonMaui]

What do those other apps use for data? Is it that Apple discontinued the API or it was just switched to obtain the sensor data elsewhere? I think I'm a bit lost on the technical side of this at this point by the way (So this is a legit question and not Socratic or rhetorical in nature)

I can only speak to OMRON for blood pressure which uses its own monitor to interface to. It also has ECG but my monitor is not an OMRON and is kindof old, they do seemingly show a Kardio device, but have not tried it and no idea what devices it can access. But it has features over and above Apple health app and is available in App Store. So not anti-competitive at all

 

[CommonSenseTech]

This situation is like the good old days when I was a teen, when Commodore would update the Amiga hardware or Atari would update the ST hardware, and software that hit the hardware rather than using the documented APIs would break.

Vendors would complain that the computer makers were being anticompetitive when, in reality, the problem was that the software developer didn’t future-proof their stuff. Commodore and Atari weren’t going to abort the release of a new graphics chipset or audio architecture in the early 90s just because it would break a poorly written app… Apple and Google shouldn’t have to in 2021 either.

 

[m4a4]

I’m not a lawyer so I won’t comment on the law (although most Internet forums talking about monopoly law are filled with disinfo in my view).

I would note that a major part of being competitive is making a product that isn’t garbage. When you demand that your clunky, redundant product be propped up through halting development of a superior experience, algorithm and data model, that’s not being competitive in the least.

“Anti-competition prevention law” wasn’t designed to allow laggards with crap products to coast on others’ coattails. There are plenty of medical and health device vendors who manage to increment their products to Apple’s roadmap just fine. Apple isn’t under any obligation to have a third party dictate the feature roadmap of their core product simply because that third party is unable to keep up with the pace of innovation in the category.

And I will note that only implying a product is crap isn't an argument against it (especially when they did get FDA approval).

And removing (not just changing) functionality on a whim under the guise of an update is terribly suspect of cutting out competition. And worse when such functionality is clearly used for medical purposes (and dangerous to remove without extended warning and deprecation).

If they can prove it was done without warning, they clearly have a case.

 

[punctualturn]

What you call swinging, most call correcting the record. If you keep it honest and non-emotional, that is how progress is made - Cheers

Boy, as a good and loyal fanboy, you keep moving the goalposts to fit your narrative.

the best part? Your swinging at everyone, specially me and my comments, which simply confirm my original post.

but with this, I will retire, because the results are the same as all the other corporations rabid followers.

 

[Cubi Dorf]

It is true company is not required to open product to outsiders, but apple has chosen to by run app store for 3rd party app. many industry are regulated in many country. an industry does not need to be monopoly driven to be regulated. automotive, airline, food, drug are all regulated. there is no reason operating system industry cannot and should not be regulated when anticompetitive abuse is common.

That is what happens when a company makes the product, they do get to make the rules. there is no law anywhere that says you have to open your products to outsiders, unless you are a monopoly, which Apple having about 33% of market, is by definition, not one.

Also, Did Alivecor open up its products? And why if they wanted to work with Apple, did they sue Apple over usage of decades old technology, that they did not invent?

 

[Bobbydpue]

Heart rate monitoring is a feature that would make perfect sense to integrate into a smart watch. Every smart watch maker now has it, and yeah, the algos change over time as the hardware does.

This reminds me of all the software companies who made file browsing software complaining about Windows incorporating file browsing into the OS. Continuous improvement and iteration is the only constant in tech and that a separate EKG function would be obsoleted by innovation in the smart watch category was assured.

Too many in tech want to sit around and monetize one invention for years; then they complain when they get disrupted.

That is not what this is about, did you read the article?

"Apple initially accepted the SmartRhythm app onto its store but later claimed it "violated" unwritten App Store guidelines. AliveCor adapted SmartRhythm multiple times so that it met Apple's ever-changing policies, but Cupertino eventually made changes to the watchOS's heart-rate algorithm so SmartRhythm and other competing apps would no longer work."

Apple actively worked to make sure there was no competition. Also if someone spends millions developing a product or technology and brings it to market they should absolutely be allowed to monetize that product for as long as they want without people stealing their ideas and tech and calling it their own. That's why patents exist.

 

[Bobbydpue]

Actually, if you read the Developers agreement, you cannot have an app that simply duplicates the core functionality of a device. AliveCor used decades old technology to come up with an app that did one thing - duplicated core functionality. Now they had multiple opportunities here to get it right. 1) Expand greatly on the functionality they provided, 2) Work with Apple to make a better health monitoring product, 3) not sue Apple over a BS claim that they invented ECGs. so1) if you have a product on someone else's hardware, expert the market to move on and render you obsolete if you don't keep offering better and better stuff - there is no requirment that the other company continues producing the product you rely on, unless you establish that requirement contractually, 2) don't sue the hand that feeds you, who is going to keep supporting you then, eh?

Finally alivecor is so full of crap. I use a Pacemaker, I use ECG data, and wow, I have other non-Apple apps that store and process the data. who knew?

"you cannot have an app that simply duplicates the core functionality of a device." That's what Apple did and not what AliveCor did.

Alivecor created the hardware and applications well before Apple integrated both into their watch and likely before anyone else was using the technology on a mobile device.

After the first Apple Watch was released AliveCor was open with Apple about its intentions to produce an ECG wristband and application and Apple not only initially approved AliveCor’s apps for distribution through the App Store, but also advertised AliveCor’s innovations in order to sell more Apple Watches.

Just so you know, this isn't about AliveCor claiming they invented ECG, but about their development of hardware and software. Analyzing mobile ECG data using neural networks isn't decades old technology.

ActiveCor developed the tech needed to make their mobile ECG tech work and got the FDA's approval well before Apple did:

- The Co-found of AliveCor,David Albert, patented wireless ECG data transmission from a handheld device in 1998.

- In 2010 David Albert developed an ECG equipped smartphone case. It was given FDA approval in 2012.

- AliveCor later released a credit-card sized device and was able to send medical-grade ECG data to the cloud where it could be read by physicians.

- AliveCor investigated how its single-lead ECG compared to a traditional 12-lead device and used that data to develop software to better detect heart irregularities before doctors would know to take a closer look.

- AliveCor was cleared by the FDA in 2015 to offer algorithmic analysis of readings to determine certain heart rhythm problems.

- AliveCor was using neural networks to "train" its products to detect heart problems in 2017 and in that same year their KardiaBand ECG reader was given FDA approval as a medical device accessory to the Apple Watch. In 2018 AliveCor was given an innovation award for it's ECG software.

- AliveCor developed software to make it possible for a mobile platform to analyze ECG data with 95% accuracy.

- AliveCor told Apple they have been given FDA approval for their wristband and application and told Apple the day they were going to announce it's approval. The day AliveCor made their announcement Apple “pre-announced” a heart initiative for the Apple Watch. There is little doubt Apple started work integrating the ECG function shortly after AliveCor told Apple about their wrist band and application.

- On 12 September 2018 Apple released their Apple Watch 4 with ECG and marketed it as "the first-ever ECG app offered directly to consumers”

 

[wiyosaya]

Is this the same one where in 30 minutes' time he also accuses MS of stealing the same tech he stole?

I don't remember all that much from the movie other than Jobs admitting that he stole designs from Xerox PARC after visiting them, and the fact that since it was filmed when Jobs was bounced from his role at Apple (he was running "Next" at the time), he seemed uncharacteristically humble.

Depending on where you live, you might be able to borrow a copy of it from your local library. IMO, it is a fascinating film.

What is worse, given that we are living on some strange times of empty human beings that needs to worship corporations and celebrities to have some sense of personal worth, they will blindly and rabidly defend apple, nvidia, intel, the kartrashians, etc, regardless of their practices and actions.

Well, to go into what may amount to trolling, I think you forgot to mention all those who believe in such a vast, clandestine conspiracy, that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from their would be king. That conspiracy, incidentally, to another hit to its prime motivator just yesterday - https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...aid-theres-no-proof-of-fraud/?sh=4816cdcf4690
Strange times indeed. To me, it is rather insane as it seems those who claim to value freedom would rather have a monarchy in the US.

 

[wiyosaya]

yah, nobody ever had ECGs before, totally invented by AliveCor. Are you kidding me?

We will see where it goes in court. Based on what the article says, it does not sound, to me, like that is the crux of the issue.

EDIT: Borrow the film from your local library, assuming it is available to you that way, and make your own decision on the matter.

 

[CommonSenseTech]

And removing (not just changing) functionality on a whim under the guise of an update is terribly suspect of cutting out competition.

This is how you get crusty, crap ecosystems over time — create a mandate that legacy stuff can never, ever be dumped lest some lazy company’s product breaks with the application of new technology.

 

[CommonSenseTech]

Also if someone spends millions developing a product or technology and brings it to market they should absolutely be allowed to monetize that product for as long as they want without people stealing their ideas and tech and calling it their own. That's why patents exist.

That’s the patent troll argument.

It also is, ironically, the same stupid argument that Apple used in its lawsuit against Samsung when they claimed to have invented touchscreen devices with color icons and rounded corners and demanded that courts award Apple a monopoly on touchscreen devices.

 

[m4a4]

This is how you get crusty, crap ecosystems over time — create a mandate that legacy stuff can never, ever be dumped lest some lazy company’s product breaks with the application of new technology.

Where did I say never deprecate or remove deprecated functionality? Because I'm reading quite the opposite in what you quoted...

Like, you must be trolling at this point. You keep making nonsensical replies.

 

[Axil00]

I’m calling BS. You cannot be anti-competitive on your own device, you are not even required to open your devices up to outside entities.

This is demonstrably false. Microsoft has been required to amend or discontinue business practices that restricted use of it's own product many times.

Hopefully this correction of the record hasn't been too emotional...

 

[CommonSenseTech]

Where did I say never deprecate or remove deprecated functionality? Because I'm reading quite the opposite in what you quoted...

Like, you must be trolling at this point. You keep making nonsensical replies.

The functionality that Apple removed from the Watch was deprecated. You’ve been actively arguing that Apple must preserve deprecated technology.

And lay off the personal attacks. They’re not appropriate.

 

[m4a4]

The functionality that Apple removed from the Watch was deprecated. You’ve been actively arguing that Apple must preserve deprecated technology.

And lay off the personal attacks. They’re not appropriate.

Tell you what, you source where it says it was actually deprecated for a reasonable timeframe (instead of making another contradictory assumption), and I'll take you seriously.
Otherwise, you're just trolling.

 

[CommonSenseTech]

Tell you what, you source where it says it was actually deprecated for a reasonable timeframe (instead of making another contradictory assumption), and I'll take you seriously.
Otherwise, you're just trolling.

Right after you source where it was an essential feature that was deleted to prevent competitors from making similar offerings.

Which will be difficult, because several other competitors have no trouble selling similar Apple Watch solutions — as has been documented on this very thread.

I’ll stand by while you insist that thoughtfully reading the thread and providing a perspective based on that instead of “I hate Apple” is trolling.

 

[m4a4]

Right after you source where it was an essential feature that was deleted to prevent competitors from making similar offerings.

Don't need to. The claim is that they removed a feature in an update without warning.
Unless you didn't read the article?

So just trolling then. Got it.

 

[CommonSenseTech]

Don't need to. The claim is that they removed a feature in an update without warning.

And I, as well as a number of other people, explained why that claim was wrong to you, multiple times, citing competitors who do just fine by not using deprecated code.

To which you responded with personal insults, which typically mean you’ve conceded the point. I accept your concession.

 

[Axil00]

Right after you source where it was an essential feature that was deleted to prevent competitors from making similar offerings.

Well the fact is it did prevent at least one competitor from making said offering.

This isn't a criminal case with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. If a judge believes it is slightly more likely than not apple did this for capricious reasons they will lose the case.

 

[CommonSenseTech]

Well the fact is it did prevent at least one competitor from making said offering.

You could say the same thing about eliminating Rosetta breaking PowerPC software, or going to 32 bit clean code breaking bad 24 bit code.

They’d have to show that Apple was targeting them to protect its own business, which is implausible given that numerous other much larger developers making comparable products had no problem keeping up with the development of the watch.

Then Apple can simply point out that the code was deprecated and the developer in question did not keep up with the rigors of iOS development, unlike all their other competitors, and is asking the judge for special treatment that their competitors didn’t receive.

I don’t think that case will go too well for the developer.

 

[Raunchy]

Heart rate monitoring is a feature that would make perfect sense to integrate into a smart watch. Every smart watch maker now has it, and yeah, the algos change over time as the hardware does.

This reminds me of all the software companies who made file browsing software complaining about Windows incorporating file browsing into the OS. Continuous improvement and iteration is the only constant in tech and that a separate EKG function would be obsoleted by innovation in the smart watch category was assured.

Too many in tech want to sit around and monetize one invention for years; then they complain when they get disrupted.

Where's the evidence that this company did that?