A federal jury ruled Apple must pay Masimo $634M for infringing a key blood oxygen monitoring technology patent. We analyse the shocking verdict and its seismic impact on the future of the Apple-Masimo patent war and wearable tech.

For years, the Apple Watch has reigned supreme as the gold standard in consumer health monitoring. But that crown just got significantly heavier.

On Friday, a federal jury in California delivered a stark message to one of the world’s most valuable companies: innovation must be respected and protected. The verdict mandates that Apple pay medical device maker Masimo $634 million for infringing a patent related to blood oxygen monitoring technology.

The jury specifically found that features within the Apple Watch—namely the workout mode and heart rate notification functions—violated Masimo’s intellectual property. While Apple plans to appeal, this ruling is more than just a massive financial penalty; it is a major precedent that could reshape the entire health-tech landscape.

The Verdict’s Gravity: Decoding the Masimo $634M Figure

The Masimo $634M figure represents one of the largest patent infringement awards in consumer technology history in the Central District of California. To Apple, a company with hundreds of billions in cash reserves, $634 million is a drop in the ocean. However, the message behind the fine is what truly matters: a jury agreed that Apple benefitted illegally from Masimo’s patented work.

Masimo, which specializes in medical-grade pulse oximetry, has long argued that Apple poached its engineers and stole its technology to rush the feature into the Apple Watch. This legal victory, according to Masimo, is a “significant win in our ongoing efforts to protect our innovations and intellectual property.”

The dispute centered heavily on whether the Apple Watch, as a consumer wearable, qualified as a “patient monitor” under the scope of Masimo’s patent—a designation Apple vehemently contested. The jury, by siding with Masimo, has implicitly affirmed the medical-grade value of the Watch’s health features.

The IP Landscape: Why Tech Giants Prey on Medical Patents

The clash between Apple and Masimo highlights a critical trend: the merging of consumer tech and clinical medicine. When giants like Apple venture into health, they often encounter decades of specialized IP held by focused medical companies like Masimo.

The blood oxygen monitoring technology known as pulse oximetry is complex, relying on intricate algorithms to accurately measure oxygen saturation (SpO2) while compensating for motion—a major engineering hurdle. For a $634 million judgment to be levied, the jury clearly determined that the core methodology used in the Apple Watch patent infringement was not independently developed by Apple, but rather derived from Masimo’s protected work.

This is a victory for the “little guys.” It reinforces the notion that building a smaller, specialized company with deep IP can still provide a shield against the appropriation of technology by multi-trillion-dollar corporations.

The Road Ahead: What the Apple Masimo Patent War Means for Users

The legal battle between Apple and Masimo is a multi-front war that has already caused disruption for consumers. The US International Trade Commission (ITC) previously issued an import ban on certain Apple Watch models over this same Apple Masimo patent dispute, forcing Apple to temporarily disable the blood oxygen feature via a software update in the U.S.

The $634 million verdict throws several possible next steps into sharp relief:

1. The Appeal: Apple has confirmed it will appeal the decision. This process could take years, and the payment may be paused pending the outcome.
2. Permanent Injunction: The most dangerous outcome for Apple is a permanent injunction that would force the company to permanently disable or redesign the blood oxygen monitoring technology in all current and future watches.
3. The Licensing Deal: The most practical and likely path is that this massive verdict becomes leverage for Masimo to force Apple to finally agree to a lucrative, multi-year licensing deal for the use of the patent. This would allow Apple to maintain the feature while compensating Masimo for its innovation.

For users, the whiplash continues. While Apple has since introduced a software workaround—shifting the calculation of blood oxygen data from the watch to the paired iPhone—the functionality remains under legal scrutiny by the ITC. The $634 million ruling only intensifies the pressure on Apple to find a definitive, patent-free solution or to finally pay for Masimo’s technology.

This verdict is a powerful reminder that while the Apple Watch patent infringement case focuses on one company and one feature, the stakes affect every consumer who relies on the increasing integration of medical technology into their daily lives. The Masimo $634M decision will be cited in IP courtrooms for years to come, sending a clear warning shot across the bow of Big Tech.

Is the new $230 Apple Pocket a work of genius from Apple x Issey Miyake or a ridiculous luxury gimmick? We review the price, design, and best alternatives.

Apple has done it again. Not with a chip, not with a revolutionary display, but with… a pocket. The new $230 Apple Pocket is here, and it has already detonated a cultural schism, instantly becoming the most divisive tech accessory of the year.

This isn’t just a product; it’s a provocation.

At first glance, it’s a minimalist pouch for your iPhone. But look closer, and you see the details. This is the Apple x Issey Miyake collaboration, a high-fashion iPhone Pocket that costs more than a pair of AirPods Pro.

The internet is, predictably, broken. Is this a brilliant piece of performance art? A sign of peak Apple hubris? Or is it the next logical step in the complete fusion of technology and personal identity?

This article will dissect every angle of this Apple new product 2025. We will analyze the 3D-knitted construction, the controversial Apple Pocket price, and its utility as a high-end Apple lifestyle accessory. By the end, we’ll answer the one question that matters: is the Apple Pocket worth it, or is this the ultimate designer tech collaboration gimmick?

The Apple x Issey Miyake Collaboration: A Closer Look

To understand the Apple Pocket, you must first understand its collaborator. This isn’t a random label-slap. Issey Miyake, the late, legendary designer, built a global fashion empire not on logos, but on material innovation and architectural form. His Pleats Please line revolutionized polyester, and his Bao Bao bag turned simple triangles into kinetic art.

This Issey Miyake collaboration is a meeting of two minds. Both Apple and Miyake share a deep-seated obsession with minimalism, material science, and the “in-between” spaces.

So, what is it?

The Apple Pocket is not a case. It offers almost no drop protection. It’s a vessel. It’s a wearable, 3D-knitted pouch designed to house your iPhone and nothing else. The 3D-knitted construction is its defining feature. Think of Apple’s HomePod mesh or the seamless knit of a high-end sneaker, but with the structural integrity of Miyake’s geometric designs. It’s crafted from a single, continuous thread (likely a high-performance recycled polymer), meaning there are no seams, no stitches, and no unnecessary bulk.

It comes in two core variants: a shorter strap designed to be held like a clutch or worn on the wrist, and a longer crossbody version. The colors are pure Apple-Miyake: think Chalk, Slate, and a deep ‘Sumi’ Black.

This is the very definition of an Apple fashion accessory. It’s designed to be seen, to be worn as part of an outfit. It’s the evolution of the AirPods case from a simple utility to a status-signaling earring, writ large for your phone.

The $230 Question: Analyzing the “Apple Pocket Price”

Let’s address the elephant in the room: the $230 price tag.

For $230, you could buy an Apple Watch SE. You could buy a high-end protective case from a brand like RIMOWA. You could buy twelve of Apple’s old $19 iPod socks.

The vitriol online was immediate. Tech critics see it as an absurd cash grab, a luxury tax on the Apple faithful. Fashion critics, however, see it differently. In the world of designer goods, $230 for anything with an Issey Miyake pedigree is, frankly, an entry-level price. A Bao Bao pouch costs more.

This is the central conflict of the Apple Pocket. Are you paying for:

1. Utility? No.
2. Protection? Absolutely not.
3. The Apple Logo? Partly.
4. The Issey Miyake Name? Partly.
5. The Statement? Entirely.

The Apple Pocket price is a litmus test. It’s designed to filter out anyone who has to ask “why?” It’s a classic Veblen good—an item whose demand increases as its price rises, precisely because its price signals status. Apple and Miyake aren’t selling a pocket; they’re selling exclusivity. They’re selling a membership card to a club that understands the intersection of minimalist tech and high fashion.

So, is the Apple Pocket worth it? From a practical standpoint, it is an indefensible purchase. From a cultural and fashion standpoint, it might just be the most “correctly” priced accessory of the year.

Beyond the Hype: A Practical “Apple Pocket Review”

If we strip away the hype and the price, what problem does this iPhone Pocket actually solve?

It solves the “pocket problem.”

This is an accessory for the person in high-waisted trousers with no pockets, or a silk slip dress. It’s for the minimalist who wants to leave the house with only two things: their iPhone and their keys (which are probably digital, on their iPhone). It’s for the person who hates the unseemly, rectangular bulge a Pro Max-sized iPhone creates in a suit jacket or a pair of jeans.

Here is a quick breakdown of its actual utility:

The Good:

• Minimalism: It is the purest “hands-free” solution. It’s lighter and more elegant than a lanyard or a clunky belt clip.
• Fashion Statement: It is the look. It forces your $1,200 phone to become a central part of your outfit, like a piece of jewelry.
• Material Feel: The 3D-knitted construction is reportedly a sensory delight—tactile, structured, and unique.

The Bad:

• Zero Protection: Drop your phone while it’s in this, and you’ll be booking a Genius Bar appointment. It protects from scratches, and that’s it.
• Security: A crossbody pouch is a tempting target for a snatch-and-run thief in any major city.
• Singular Use: It holds a phone. That’s it. No cards. No cash. No lip balm.

This Apple Pocket review concludes that its utility is entirely aesthetic. It recalls the infamous iPod Sock from 2004, but where the sock was a $19, whimsical, protective afterthought, the Apple Pocket is a $230, deliberate, performative forethought. It’s the iPod Sock, but it went to Parsons and got a trust fund.

How to Get the Look for Less: Top “Apple Pocket Alternatives”

For 99% of the population, the Apple Pocket is an object of curiosity, not a purchase. But the idea—a minimalist, wearable phone holder—is now firmly in the zeitgeist. If you want the function without the fashion-world price tag, you have excellent Apple Pocket alternatives.

This is how you capture the trend for less:

1. The Lanyard Leader: CASETiFY
   • This brand dominates the phone-strap market. You can get their durable, stylish rope crossbody straps, metal chains, or utility-style lanyards (often bundled with a case) for a fraction of the Apple price.
2. The Leather Pouch: Bellroy (or similar)
   • For a more classic, professional look, brands like Bellroy offer slim leather phone pouches and “slings” that serve a similar purpose. They offer more protection and often have a slot for a credit card, adding utility.
3. The Techwear Sling: Nomatic / Aer
   • If your style leans more gorpcore or techwear, a small tech sling is a far more practical alternative. They’re designed to be waterproof, durable, and hold your phone, wallet, keys, and AirPods.
4. The Craft-Core Option: Etsy
   • Want a simple, knitted, or macramé phone holder? The artisan marketplace is overflowing with creative, affordable options that deliver the same hands-free vibe for under $30.

The Final Verdict: A “Genius” Move or a “Gimmick”?

The Apple Pocket is the most Apple product in years. It’s a polarizing object that is less about technology and more about culture.

It is simultaneously:

• A masterpiece of brand alignment, pairing Apple’s tech-minimalism with Issey Miyake’s material-first fashion.
• A ridiculous gimmick that offers no practical value for its exorbitant price.

This designer tech collaboration isn’t about solving a problem. It’s about creating an object of desire. It’s the ultimate Apple lifestyle accessory, a status symbol that communicates you are not just a tech user, but a fashion participant. It’s less a tool and more a piece of commentary you can wear.

The Apple Pocket isn’t for everyone. In fact, it’s for almost no one.

And for Apple and Issey Miyake, that’s precisely the point.

In a groundbreaking move that signals a potential shift in the global financial landscape, the Czech National Bank (CNB) has announced the creation of a $1 million test portfolio primarily composed of bitcoin. This makes the CNB the first central bank in the world to officially invest in cryptocurrency, setting a precedent that could influence central bank cryptocurrency adoption worldwide.

The Czech Central Bank Bitcoin investment is significant for several reasons. Traditionally, central banks have relied on low-risk assets such as government bonds and gold to manage reserves and implement monetary policy. By including bitcoin in its portfolio, the CNB is exploring new avenues for diversification and innovation in digital asset portfolio management. This move demonstrates an openness to integrating cryptocurrencies into traditional financial systems, potentially enhancing liquidity and offering a hedge against inflation and fiat currency devaluation.

From a macroeconomic perspective, the CNB’s bitcoin purchase symbolizes a bold experiment in modern monetary policy. Central banks operate under the mandate of safeguarding economic stability, and the volatility of bitcoin represents both an opportunity and a challenge. On one hand, bitcoin’s limited supply and decentralized nature could provide protection against monetary inflation, especially in an era of quantitative easing and expanding money supply. On the other hand, its price volatility poses risks that could complicate asset valuation and risk management strategies within the central banking system.

The digital asset portfolio held by the CNB is a testbed for what could become a broader trend among central banks. As cryptocurrency adoption grows, other institutions might follow suit, driving greater legitimacy and mainstream acceptance of digital currencies. This could lead to expanded regulatory frameworks that strike a balance between fostering innovation and maintaining market stability.

Economic implications of this move are multifaceted. Diversification into bitcoin may improve the resilience of central bank portfolios, offering a new tool to counterbalance traditional asset fluctuations. Moreover, embracing cryptocurrency can catalyze financial innovation, encouraging faster payment systems and new monetary instruments. However, regulatory challenges remain significant. Cryptocurrency markets are subject to rapid changes in rules, oversight inconsistencies, and concerns surrounding security and fraud. Central banks must tread carefully to avoid exposing public funds to excessive risk.

In conclusion, the Czech National Bank’s pioneering bitcoin investment marks a transformative moment in global finance. Their $1 million digital asset portfolio experiment highlights the evolving role of central banks in a digital economy and opens the door to future innovations in monetary policy and asset management. Observers of central bank cryptocurrency adoption will watch closely to assess how this bold step influences broader economic trends and regulatory evolution.