[lynndotpy]

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.

[nickthegreek]

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?

[lynndotpy]

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.

[nickthegreek]

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.