4 ms·
Actually the part general consumers wanted was the fitness part -- this is what put them seriously behind other more poorly designed watches like the Fitbit. T
by wvenable 9y ago
Actually the part general consumers wanted was the fitness part -- this is what put them seriously behind other more poorly designed watches like the Fitbit. They didn't see the fitness angle until it was too late.
Certainly there's no reason why a fitness angle had to interfere with the hacker-friendly architecture.
- loulouxiv 9y agoI remember reading a post mortem interview of th founder around these lines, but can't find it anymore. They went all-in on the fitness thing when they found out the big market was there, thinking of it as their last chance for survival. Ironically I think that was what killed them in the end. Since they had a very loyal customer base (yes maybe not very big but enough so every kickstarter they launched was a massive success) they probably could have lived aside Fitbit, Apple etc. Reducing their burn rate by focussing on their market segment (productivity watch) and not trying to launch several products every year would probably have kept them afloat.
- wvenable 9y agoUnfortunately since they took VC money they couldn't just sit by and be a small player with a loyal customer base. That would have been the ideal position for them and could have kept them going for a long time. But that doesn't satisfy their investors that wanted to see a high return on their investment. They never even really got their fitness side off the ground before they died. The Pebble 2 was their first fitness focused watch and they were already dead when it came out. The Pebble Round with a heart-rate monitor would have sold like hotcakes to women with the right marketing.