Apple Watch no longer sold with blood oxygen monitoring after patent battle loss
Apple has stopped selling new Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 models in the US with blood oxygen monitoring enabled after losing a patent case to medical device maker Masimo, leading to a software-based disabling of the feature while the hardware remains. Commenters debate whether Apple effectively “stole” Masimo’s technology or is being targeted by overbroad patents, and whether patents in cases like this protect small innovators or deny consumers potentially life‑saving capabilities. There is also disagreement over how useful wrist-based blood oxygen tracking really is, with some citing sleep apnea, high-altitude activities, and COVID monitoring, while others see it as an inaccurate or niche feature that won’t significantly affect sales.
Licensing dispute and Apple’s strategy
- Many posters ask why Apple doesn’t just license the tech; common view is Apple decided it’s cheaper to drop/disable the feature than pay high medical‑device licensing fees.
- Others note that patent owners can refuse licensing or demand control over implementation, so money alone may not solve it.
- Several comments allege Apple courted the medical company, learned details under pretense of partnership or licensing, hired key staff, then used similar tech without paying.
- Counter‑claims say Apple independently developed its solution, with some links arguing Masimo applied key patents after Apple’s work and is abusing the system.
- There is mention of Apple trying to invalidate the patents and countersuing over its own patents, characterized by some as “scorched earth.”
Impact on existing and future watches
- For US models, blood oxygen functionality is reportedly disabled via software while the sensor hardware remains; customs approved this workaround.
- Some expect Apple may eventually have to pay damages or even “brick” the feature on existing watches if courts find infringement; others think any settlement will be minor relative to Apple’s revenue and treated as a cost of doing business.
- Several argue loss of SpO2 won’t materially affect sales; others say for certain users (sleep apnea, altitude activities, medical monitoring) SpO2 was a key purchase driver.
Usefulness and accuracy of SpO2 on wearables
- Mixed views on usefulness: some call it a COVID‑era novelty with limited ongoing value; others cite use for sleep apnea screening, altitude acclimatization, aviation, and COVID monitoring.
- Multiple comments stress that wrist‑based SpO2 is harder and often less accurate than fingertip sensors; some find watch readings fiddly or unreliable, others cite research showing Apple’s readings roughly medical‑grade under good conditions.
- HRV and stress metrics are raised as more valuable features, though wrist‑based accuracy is also questioned.
Patents, competition, and public interest
- Some argue this is patents working as intended: protecting a smaller innovator from a giant that used its tech without paying.
- Others say the underlying innovation (sensor placement / multi‑LED refinement on decades‑old pulse oximetry) is trivial, obvious, or overly broad, and that enforcing it removes a potentially life‑saving feature from mass‑market devices.
- Broader debate emerges over whether patents spur or hinder innovation, whether this specific patent is closer to genuine protection or patent trolling, and how much large platforms should be regulated.