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.