Do you feel they should have a disclaimer about it being harder to take picture of dark skinned people in many settings with their cameras as well?

Did you actually read the ToS or EULA?

There are slightly different rules for health devices than for leisure ones. It seems reasonable to me for Apple (and everyone else, just to be clear) to be made to amend their printed materials to properly disclose well-known-to-Apple problems with oximetry in darker skin. The guy deserves a refund, fees covered, maybe a small token for the effort, and for Apple to not make product claims that it can't fulfill. I do hope it doesn't turn into a giant thing though.

From what I've read the device is FDA-approved so I don't see the issue.

Is "health device" to medical device as homeopathy is to actual medicine?

No?

What is a "health device"? I'm assuming you used the term intentionally and did not mean "medical device" which carries certain legal implications.

> and for Apple to not make product claims that it can't fulfill.

What claim did they make? AFAIK, their page on the oximeter always had a disclaimer (the current one says “Blood Oxygen app measurements are not intended for medical use, including self-diagnosis or consultation with a doctor, and are only designed for general fitness and wellness purposes”)

A better disclaimer would state the possibility that these oxygen readings are inaccurate for more than 50% of the world's population.

Such a disclaimer would say 100%.

I do read the ToS and I skim the EULA. I skim the ToS between OS releases (so maybe it's possible the latest point release acknowledges this.)

To be clear, I don't think it'd be acceptable for this to be hidden in the Terms either way.

And no, that's not really equivalent either. And the drawback becomes immediately evident to almost anyone taking photos, since they have their own eyes to compare to.

> Do you feel they should have a disclaimer about it being harder to take picture of dark skinned people in many settings with their cameras as well?

Yeah, I kinda do.

Why would they need to? It functions the same way all oximeters do, which have been around for decades.

My friend is heavily tattooed and their apple watch doesn't even know its on their wrist and they lost alot of functionality because of that. They would love for it to work but understand the limitations of the technology currently.

Apple already lists many limitations of their technology, and not everyone has the benefit of the knowledge of the limitations of each component of the devices. Many customers of the Watch have not even been around for decades plural.

We pay Apple to understand the internals they put in their watch, so they should be the ones to describe the limitations of their technology.

Companies marketing departments do not go around creating a list of issues with their products unless a government mandates they do so (rx meds, nicotine, liquor).

I am unaware of Apple listing limitations of any of their technologies. Could you provide a few examples?

Yes-- there are a plethora of examples. Here is one page full of them, and I doubt these are all mandated: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-watch/apple-watch-ultra

Brightness, battery, cell support, limited water and dust resistance, etc. are the most obvious ones. The footnotes list other details, including demographics on which certain features are less effective.

For example,

> Irregular rhythm notification requires the latest version of watchOS and iOS. It is not intended for use by people under 22 years old or those who have been previously diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AFib).

As someone else linked in the thread, it turns out Apple actually does claim their oximeter method is special and improves on conventional oximetry, accounting for the range of human skin tones: https://www.apple.com/healthcare/docs/site/Blood_Oxygen_app_...

If their O2 meter functions poorly depending on skin tone, that's very obviously worth noting in a footer.

Most of those seem like technical specifications but I get what you are saying. I just don’t understand how this is a winnable case unless they prove that Apples approach is actually worse than other oximeters. And that seems incredibly unlikely.