4 ms·
* > An estimated 300,000 people bought Bluetooth-enabled WeVibes, according to court documents, and about 100,000 of them used the app.* I know its not the pri
by callmeed 10y ago
* > An estimated 300,000 people bought Bluetooth-enabled WeVibes, according to court documents, and about 100,000 of them used the app.*
I know its not the primary issue, but its a very interesting part of the story to me and raises a lot of questions. Only 1/3 of people who purchased the device used the connected app. This sounds a lot like my Annova sous-vide: it has an app but I never use it (a dial and button are fine by me). I wonder if this 1/3 number is the normal rate among "smart devices". Do 2/3 of people not use it because its of no real value–or because the setup/ux sucks? Do companies make smart devices because "everyone else is doing it" or is there another reason (charge more & better margins)? Finally, will we start to see a decline in smart/connected devices if adoption stays low (in favor of products that simply innovate in other ways)?
- sanswork 10y agoI think the apps rarely provide value or they are outside the normal workflow. I just replaced my kitchen scale and the new one has an app that essential tries to be my fitness pal. But I already use myfitnesspal so I'm not going to switch since the only time savings is the time spent typing in the weight(I still have to search for the food) which is offset by the food database being worse.
- azernik 10y agoGoing from my own Anova experience - the people who use the app are probably power users who want the full feature set, as opposed to those (like you) whose use cases are served perfectly well by the clean minimalist UI exposed on the physical device.
- choward 10y agoIf something is bluetooth/wifi enabled, all I want is an API that doesn't go through their servers. I don't want to rely on their piece of crap app.