12 ms·

Oof. Goodbye Fitbit. Or, rather, welcome to the world where you're a pawn in internal politics. You may think you have a product but you don't. If your product

by cletus 7y ago

Oof. Goodbye Fitbit. Or, rather, welcome to the world where you're a pawn in internal politics. You may think you have a product but you don't. If your product survives (as in, Google didn't buy you just for the team), your product schedule will have to survive the interests of every other PA/team in Google. - You think you have software to run your products? Ha. The Android team will have a different opinion. - Even if you survive Android, Fuchsia probably thinks you belong on their paltform. - Oh and while we're at it, let's integrate with OAuth2.0 so your device now needs a Google account to even work (and stops working when refresh tokens can't be used as happened to many Google wireless routers). - Your software development is now set in stone as various teams work out how to migrate it to Google infrastructure and rewrite it in [language/framework du jour]. I actually agree with other commenters: Google just doesn't know what it's about anymore. It has no overriding vision. Larry just isn't the leader Google needs to be, which would be fine, except that he clearly wants to be. Disclaimer: Xoogler.

1290cc 7y ago
Just like any massive global tech company.
taurath 7y ago
They don’t care about the product in so much as they care about the avenue to suck up more data, no?
- cletus 7y ago
  Actually, no. I find this whole "they're selling your data" trope to be trite and just annoying at this point. I actually expect this more a reaction to Apple's pivot into health with the Apple Watch (people seem to forget the ex-Burberry CEO positioned the Apple Watch 1 as a luxury product--anyone remember the Apple Watch Edition for $10k?--health came later).
  - taurath 7y ago
    Right, but they’re not going to make money off the hardware, it’s going to be the services and ad targeting based off of the data. You think chromecast is to make a profit?
    - dgacmu 7y ago
      This is a continuation of the trite bit. What's missing is recognizing that Alphabet (not Google) is very focused on diversifying its revenue stream beyond search advertising, ideally in a way that takes advantage of the things it's already good at. GCP is a good example. No search. No ads. No using of customer data. Just a desire for a really big potential revenue stream that builds on Google's expertise in managing huge numbers of servers and services.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Very focused, but not very good at it thus far. Their revenue is still 80-90% advertising revenue.
        dgacmu 7y ago
        No disagreement.
      - zapita 7y ago
        GCP is the exception in that it’s the only Google business that does not rely on data aggregation and profiling.
        dgacmu 7y ago
        That's not true. I think @ceejayoz below pointed out the situation well: they've made many attempts (waymo, for another still-unprofitable example). Just not many of them have turned into significant revenue -- particularly compared to the sustained ~24% YoY growth that Google managed for so long. That's a hard business to beat.
        7y ago
  - impendia 7y ago
    > I find this whole "they're selling your data" trope to be trite and just annoying at this point. Do you believe it to be mistaken? Or true, but not worth caring about?
    - muro 7y ago
      From Google's privacy policy: We don’t share information that personally identifies you with advertisers, such as your name or email, unless you ask us to
      - aledalgrande 7y ago
        We all know it's possible to identify you even without name or email, given enough data.
        wstrange 7y ago
        If it was easy, advertisers would be doing it already. Google is highly motivated to keep your data fire-walled from advertisers.
      - autoexec 7y ago
        The problem isn't just their sharing the data (although you'd be naive to assume that the data they collect isn't being turned over to at least the US government) it's the collecting and storing of that data itself that is problematic. The fact that they're using that data to manipulate us via advertising isn't much better.
        jschwartzi 7y ago
        The presence and centralization of the data makes it a very juicy target for all kinds of evil people.
      - mlindner 7y ago
        Except that statement is just wrong and misleading. Your personal identifying information is all the metadata that can be aggregated and intersected to directly identify you, your name just is a number in the database but it's directly identifying and tracking _you_. Google doesn't care about selling your name or email, that's not valuable to them or advertisers. And "unless you ask us to" is the default behavior of almost all google products. You have to ask them not to, sometimes under penalty of law (GDPR), before they actually change their behavior.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    While I sort of agree, I think the problem is that "they're selling your data" misstates what actually happens. Facebook and Google want to collect your data and keep it. What they're selling is indirect access to you: the more information they have on you, the more precisely they can theoretically target advertising and content to you. Keeping the data they have on you to themselves is literally their business model. Two points, though. First, of course, that's still essentially what's been dubbed "surveillance capitalism"; it's still something someone may be uncomfortable with for a variety of reasons. Your data is being indirectly monetized, but it's still being monetized, and you still have very limited insight into the extent of that data and how it's being used. Second, adtech isn't the business model of everyone who collects data -- and one could argue that the more businesses a data-collecting company is in, the more moral hazards pop up. How much data will Google give over to law enforcement when there's a warrant, for example? What if we see a Facebook Health initiative that allows medical providers and insurers selective access to what Facebook "knows" about you within the limits of regulations and the law? (Do you know what those limits are? I don't.) I actually expect this more a reaction to Apple's pivot into health with the Apple Watch... Expect what, privacy concerns? While I understand that, I'm not sure much health information collected by Apple devices ever leaves your "local ecosystem" (i.e., your personal set of devices). Also, the Apple Watch Edition notwithstanding, I'm not sure I'd say its original incarnation was positioned as a luxury product -- yes, you could pay $10,000+ for it if you wanted to, but it still started at $349. But it was certainly positioned as a fashion product at its introduction, which they've dialed way back on since.
    - alexis_fr 7y ago
      Google also wants to meddle with the elections (Numerous quotes here, but the most relevant is certainly Youtube’s CEO). Anyway, you are right for the collect-and-keep-my-data part, but I think in their idea they want to use this data to build some sort of utopia. That is the most benevolent appreciation on it, because it is one that explains all of “Do no evil”, election “influence”, use of AI and exhaustive data collection.
      - jschwartzi 7y ago
  - Hippocrates 7y ago
    Google’s core business is ad targeting, the cornerstone of which is personal data used to target better. While it is (hopefully) untrue that they literally sell your data, they do profit from it indirectly (and massively, it’s 85% of revenue). Google has many great products and some bad ones, but almost all have vacuum hoses up against your personal data... Now, Fitbit makes a really mediocre and pedestrian tech product that captures a wealth of deeply personal data. I’ll go ahead and connect the dots on this one.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  The data isn't very valuable, and it's even less valuable without users. They care about the product but are just incompetent at making hardware that people will buy, even if they eventually make the the product have useful features like identity assertion.
  - asp_hornet 7y ago
    I don’t know about that. People’s daily fitness activity, weight, entire diet and sleep patterns aren’t valuable?
habitue 7y ago
> as in, Google didn't buy you just for the team 2.1B isn't an acquihire. They want the customers, the team, and the manufacturing chain at the very least.
- md8 7y ago
  You missed "Data"
  - habitue 7y ago
    I mean, it's implied in "customers" but yeah, they want the data obviously
- hugi 7y ago
  Nah, what they want is me, ie. my data. I'm throwing away that fitbit (Google Personal information gathering device) and deleting my account. I'm informed enough to make that decision. Unfortunately thousands of users that just got sold out are not. Fuck Google.
  - antisthenes 7y ago
    We live in fast times. In a little less than a decade the perception of Google went from 'Best search on the internet' and 'Do no evil' to 'Fuck Google' and 'Delete your accounts with them'; and 'their search has gotten exponentially worse' No skin in the game from me (I only use Gmail for non-essential shopping), just an observation. Personally, I think it's great. I'm proud to stand with the vocal minority against the rampant data collection and trade.
    - qubex 7y ago
      Same as Microsoft, really: first they were one of the plucky little companies* “sticking it” to the likes of Big Blue and AT&T, then they themselves fell victim to their own success and became embodied in Gates Of Borg on Slashdot, then they missed the boat on Mobile and failed to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the Internet and ended up on the downward stroke, so now they’re cool again... while the Googles and Apples that opposed them and grew ascendant in their various ways are now the Great Evils that draw our ire. My guess for the next great Satan? One of the notable, useful, quirky little “meta”/“web-glue” outfits such as IFTTT or somebody like that. Or a Fintech. Or some other company that somehow insinuates itself into our daily lives, holding our rickety digital lifestyles together, and eventually becomes as indispensable as mortar is to a brick building. *Other notable examples being, in no specific order: Intel, DEC, Symbolics, Commodore, and yes, Apple.
hcnews 7y ago
Sundar has been leading Google for a few years now. Larry/Sergey have been out and about for a while now. I am a Xoogler myself.
- cletus 7y ago
  Yes and no. Sundar has no more vision than Larry does yet somehow is paid $200m+ a year and in my mind is the most unjustifiably overpaid CEO by a huge margin. At least Larry founded the company and contributed to turning into the behemoth it is. Sunday is a random associate product manager who somehow managed to ride the wave of Chrome to somehow becoming CEO.
  - sah2ed 7y ago
    > Sundar has no more vision than Larry does yet somehow is paid $200m+ a year and in my mind is the most unjustifiably overpaid CEO by a huge margin. Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that this $200m figure is a multi-year figure to keep him at Google. I wouldn’t characterize him as random though. Larry seemed to like him because he is able to handle conflict very well.
    - cletus 7y ago
      https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alphabet-paid-google-ceo-sundar-pichai-200m-in-2016-2017-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alphabet-paid-google-ceo-...
      - behindsight 7y ago
        > The stock that Pichai received will vest in quarterly increments through January 2020 Seems like multi-year (2016-2020), not annually.
    - gerash 7y ago
      It is hard to accurately judge how the CEO is doing as most us are not privy to what he has to deal with in his job. That said, to me he seems uninspiring, dodging questions and without much background in Computers. In some ways arguably similar to Steve Ballmer.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>You may think you have a product but you don't. I absolutely agree with everything. Here is the thing, total side topic - but Fitbit's product is really excellent! The packaging of the PCBs, the operating system, the tech, it's all really impressive. I know that means nothing in the larger scope, Google bought them for their data and mining potential. But the product is actually really cool. It appears to be simple, but when you deep drive, you can run your own javascript code on your own device, and serialize the data with packages like CBOR for export... This was done a micro that's running an RTOS made in C on an extremely constrained resources device. I've always been impressed with Fitbit.
- swader999 7y ago
  Can you run it with Bluetooth off logging locally and then sync periodically? I doubt it but haven't dove into it
  - eric_the_read 7y ago
    I've done that occasionally, over a weekend when I left my phone at home or something. Doesn't happen often, obviously, but it does have some small number of days of local logging.
  - abeyer 7y ago
    The logging works ok while off bluetooth...but be aware that _any_ changes are basically impossible in that state. Even basic watch functionality like changing the time or setting an alarm require a bluetooth link, the software, and an internet connection back to the fitbit servers.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      Well, that's a conpletely pointless limitation. Nothing of good was lost...
harikb 7y ago
1. Just so we are clear, after having gone through 5 "lifetimes" of fitbit and probably 15 across the family, one thing I can tell you is that the software is buggy with no end in sight. Fitbit could definitely use better software. 2. If Google didn't integrate their Auth, the same community will be complaining about the lack of compatibility.
- papln 7y ago
  There's a difference betewen integrating one auth and disintegrating all others. Should my fitbit be bricked if I make a wrongthink comment on YouTube?
- magashna 7y ago
  I don't think fitbit will be improved considering how jank WearOS can be
clairity 7y ago
> “I actually agree with other commenters: Google just doesn't know what it's about anymore. It has no overriding vision.” it’s pretty apparent to me that after google finally got over wanting to be facebook, google now wants to be apple. and they’re desperately trying not to be microsoft, even though that’s what they mostly are. in the beginning, google had a unique identity (quirky & clever) and vision (organize the world’s information). now they look to others to figure out who to be. it’s like the small town high school football star who never moved on.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > small town high school football star That's odd thing to call the biggest software company* in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_c... * Alphabet
  - dastbe 7y ago
    That wiki doesn't justify your statement. It's leveraging a list from 2017, but using Alphabet's market cap from 2019? And regardless, the actual market caps on that page would say Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world. I have no idea what Forbes is using for its ranking but it is obviously not by valuation. EDIT: And it should arguably be Apple, but for some reason neither Apple nor Amazon are software companies?
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      The Wikipedia article sorts by sales. Not sure why the years are like that, but the relative values are similar in 2019. [1] [2] > for some reason neither Apple nor Amazon are software companies? Because they aren't software companies? Or at least principally software companies. Amazon is categorized as an retail company. [3] Apple is categorized as a computer hardware company. [4] Nitpicking aside, I think my point stands about a $800B+ company. [1] https://www.forbes.com/companies/alphabet/?list=global2000#50408eaa540e https://www.forbes.com/companies/alphabet/?list=global2000#5... [2] https://www.forbes.com/companies/microsoft/?list=global2000#6ea1826773f7 https://www.forbes.com/companies/microsoft/?list=global2000#... [3] https://www.forbes.com/companies/amazon/?list=global2000#2c45161e6fb8 https://www.forbes.com/companies/amazon/?list=global2000#2c4... [3] https://www.forbes.com/companies/apple/?list=global2000#3d047b735355 https://www.forbes.com/companies/apple/?list=global2000#3d04...
SirLotsaLocks 7y ago
forgive my ignorance, but what's a xoogler
- markus92 7y ago
  Ex googler
- pacificmint 7y ago
  From the context, I’d guess it’s an “Ex Googler”, in other words a former google employee.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- xingjiping 7y ago
  The Microsoft variant would be xing, I presume.
extropy 7y ago
Fitbit already runs on Google cloud [1], IMO this has been in the making for some time already. [1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/new-collaboration-fitbit-drive-positive-health-outcomes https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/new...
plexicle 7y ago
Wow what a bunch of FUD.
- dang 7y ago
  Maybe so, but please post substantively here. I know that takes time and effort, but it's always an option to just not post anything. The site guidelines particularly ask: "Please don't post shallow dismissals [...] A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
acchow 7y ago
"Google just doesn't know what it's about anymore." Isn't it an organization optimized for enabling engineers to increase leverage? That's why things get rewritten into [language/framework du jour].
- m0zg 7y ago
  I think they do. They're the same thing they've always been: an advertising company. They can only become something else when the majority of their income is derived from something else. Which it currently isn't.
SquishyPanda23 7y ago
> [language/framework du jour]. Is this an accurate description of Google? I thought they used the same 4-5 languages they've used since the beginning of time, maybe minus perl and plus kotlin.
qroshan 7y ago
Ummm. Fitbit was already on the downward spiral. So, they'll take this lifeline from Google. Thank you very much
johannes1234321 7y ago
> as in, Google didn't buy you just for the team Or for the data ... even better profiles of people, including people who tried avoiding giving Google that data. Probably time for such users to send GDPR notices (If EU citizens)

by cletus 7y ago

1290cc 7y ago

Just like any massive global tech company.

taurath 7y ago

They don’t care about the product in so much as they care about the avenue to suck up more data, no?

cletus 7y ago
Actually, no. I find this whole "they're selling your data" trope to be trite and just annoying at this point. I actually expect this more a reaction to Apple's pivot into health with the Apple Watch (people seem to forget the ex-Burberry CEO positioned the Apple Watch 1 as a luxury product--anyone remember the Apple Watch Edition for $10k?--health came later).
- taurath 7y ago
  Right, but they’re not going to make money off the hardware, it’s going to be the services and ad targeting based off of the data. You think chromecast is to make a profit?
  - dgacmu 7y ago
    This is a continuation of the trite bit. What's missing is recognizing that Alphabet (not Google) is very focused on diversifying its revenue stream beyond search advertising, ideally in a way that takes advantage of the things it's already good at. GCP is a good example. No search. No ads. No using of customer data. Just a desire for a really big potential revenue stream that builds on Google's expertise in managing huge numbers of servers and services.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Very focused, but not very good at it thus far. Their revenue is still 80-90% advertising revenue.
      - dgacmu 7y ago
        No disagreement.
    - zapita 7y ago
      GCP is the exception in that it’s the only Google business that does not rely on data aggregation and profiling.
      - dgacmu 7y ago
        That's not true. I think @ceejayoz below pointed out the situation well: they've made many attempts (waymo, for another still-unprofitable example). Just not many of them have turned into significant revenue -- particularly compared to the sustained ~24% YoY growth that Google managed for so long. That's a hard business to beat.
        7y ago
- impendia 7y ago
  > I find this whole "they're selling your data" trope to be trite and just annoying at this point. Do you believe it to be mistaken? Or true, but not worth caring about?
  - muro 7y ago
    From Google's privacy policy: We don’t share information that personally identifies you with advertisers, such as your name or email, unless you ask us to
    - aledalgrande 7y ago
      We all know it's possible to identify you even without name or email, given enough data.
      - wstrange 7y ago
        If it was easy, advertisers would be doing it already. Google is highly motivated to keep your data fire-walled from advertisers.
    - autoexec 7y ago
      The problem isn't just their sharing the data (although you'd be naive to assume that the data they collect isn't being turned over to at least the US government) it's the collecting and storing of that data itself that is problematic. The fact that they're using that data to manipulate us via advertising isn't much better.
      - jschwartzi 7y ago
        The presence and centralization of the data makes it a very juicy target for all kinds of evil people.
    - mlindner 7y ago
      Except that statement is just wrong and misleading. Your personal identifying information is all the metadata that can be aggregated and intersected to directly identify you, your name just is a number in the database but it's directly identifying and tracking _you_. Google doesn't care about selling your name or email, that's not valuable to them or advertisers. And "unless you ask us to" is the default behavior of almost all google products. You have to ask them not to, sometimes under penalty of law (GDPR), before they actually change their behavior.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  While I sort of agree, I think the problem is that "they're selling your data" misstates what actually happens. Facebook and Google want to collect your data and keep it. What they're selling is indirect access to you: the more information they have on you, the more precisely they can theoretically target advertising and content to you. Keeping the data they have on you to themselves is literally their business model. Two points, though. First, of course, that's still essentially what's been dubbed "surveillance capitalism"; it's still something someone may be uncomfortable with for a variety of reasons. Your data is being indirectly monetized, but it's still being monetized, and you still have very limited insight into the extent of that data and how it's being used. Second, adtech isn't the business model of everyone who collects data -- and one could argue that the more businesses a data-collecting company is in, the more moral hazards pop up. How much data will Google give over to law enforcement when there's a warrant, for example? What if we see a Facebook Health initiative that allows medical providers and insurers selective access to what Facebook "knows" about you within the limits of regulations and the law? (Do you know what those limits are? I don't.) I actually expect this more a reaction to Apple's pivot into health with the Apple Watch... Expect what, privacy concerns? While I understand that, I'm not sure much health information collected by Apple devices ever leaves your "local ecosystem" (i.e., your personal set of devices). Also, the Apple Watch Edition notwithstanding, I'm not sure I'd say its original incarnation was positioned as a luxury product -- yes, you could pay $10,000+ for it if you wanted to, but it still started at $349. But it was certainly positioned as a fashion product at its introduction, which they've dialed way back on since.
  - alexis_fr 7y ago
    Google also wants to meddle with the elections (Numerous quotes here, but the most relevant is certainly Youtube’s CEO). Anyway, you are right for the collect-and-keep-my-data part, but I think in their idea they want to use this data to build some sort of utopia. That is the most benevolent appreciation on it, because it is one that explains all of “Do no evil”, election “influence”, use of AI and exhaustive data collection.
    - jschwartzi 7y ago
- Hippocrates 7y ago
  Google’s core business is ad targeting, the cornerstone of which is personal data used to target better. While it is (hopefully) untrue that they literally sell your data, they do profit from it indirectly (and massively, it’s 85% of revenue). Google has many great products and some bad ones, but almost all have vacuum hoses up against your personal data... Now, Fitbit makes a really mediocre and pedestrian tech product that captures a wealth of deeply personal data. I’ll go ahead and connect the dots on this one.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
The data isn't very valuable, and it's even less valuable without users. They care about the product but are just incompetent at making hardware that people will buy, even if they eventually make the the product have useful features like identity assertion.
- asp_hornet 7y ago
  I don’t know about that. People’s daily fitness activity, weight, entire diet and sleep patterns aren’t valuable?

habitue 7y ago

> as in, Google didn't buy you just for the team 2.1B isn't an acquihire. They want the customers, the team, and the manufacturing chain at the very least.

md8 7y ago
You missed "Data"
- habitue 7y ago
  I mean, it's implied in "customers" but yeah, they want the data obviously
hugi 7y ago
Nah, what they want is me, ie. my data. I'm throwing away that fitbit (Google Personal information gathering device) and deleting my account. I'm informed enough to make that decision. Unfortunately thousands of users that just got sold out are not. Fuck Google.
- antisthenes 7y ago
  We live in fast times. In a little less than a decade the perception of Google went from 'Best search on the internet' and 'Do no evil' to 'Fuck Google' and 'Delete your accounts with them'; and 'their search has gotten exponentially worse' No skin in the game from me (I only use Gmail for non-essential shopping), just an observation. Personally, I think it's great. I'm proud to stand with the vocal minority against the rampant data collection and trade.
  - qubex 7y ago
    Same as Microsoft, really: first they were one of the plucky little companies* “sticking it” to the likes of Big Blue and AT&T, then they themselves fell victim to their own success and became embodied in Gates Of Borg on Slashdot, then they missed the boat on Mobile and failed to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the Internet and ended up on the downward stroke, so now they’re cool again... while the Googles and Apples that opposed them and grew ascendant in their various ways are now the Great Evils that draw our ire. My guess for the next great Satan? One of the notable, useful, quirky little “meta”/“web-glue” outfits such as IFTTT or somebody like that. Or a Fintech. Or some other company that somehow insinuates itself into our daily lives, holding our rickety digital lifestyles together, and eventually becomes as indispensable as mortar is to a brick building. *Other notable examples being, in no specific order: Intel, DEC, Symbolics, Commodore, and yes, Apple.

hcnews 7y ago

Sundar has been leading Google for a few years now. Larry/Sergey have been out and about for a while now. I am a Xoogler myself.

cletus 7y ago
Yes and no. Sundar has no more vision than Larry does yet somehow is paid $200m+ a year and in my mind is the most unjustifiably overpaid CEO by a huge margin. At least Larry founded the company and contributed to turning into the behemoth it is. Sunday is a random associate product manager who somehow managed to ride the wave of Chrome to somehow becoming CEO.
- sah2ed 7y ago
  > Sundar has no more vision than Larry does yet somehow is paid $200m+ a year and in my mind is the most unjustifiably overpaid CEO by a huge margin. Do you have a source for this? My understanding is that this $200m figure is a multi-year figure to keep him at Google. I wouldn’t characterize him as random though. Larry seemed to like him because he is able to handle conflict very well.
  - cletus 7y ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alphabet-paid-google-ceo-sundar-pichai-200m-in-2016-2017-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-alphabet-paid-google-ceo-...
    - behindsight 7y ago
      > The stock that Pichai received will vest in quarterly increments through January 2020 Seems like multi-year (2016-2020), not annually.
  - gerash 7y ago
    It is hard to accurately judge how the CEO is doing as most us are not privy to what he has to deal with in his job. That said, to me he seems uninspiring, dodging questions and without much background in Computers. In some ways arguably similar to Steve Ballmer.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

>You may think you have a product but you don't. I absolutely agree with everything. Here is the thing, total side topic - but Fitbit's product is really excellent! The packaging of the PCBs, the operating system, the tech, it's all really impressive. I know that means nothing in the larger scope, Google bought them for their data and mining potential. But the product is actually really cool. It appears to be simple, but when you deep drive, you can run your own javascript code on your own device, and serialize the data with packages like CBOR for export... This was done a micro that's running an RTOS made in C on an extremely constrained resources device. I've always been impressed with Fitbit.

swader999 7y ago
Can you run it with Bluetooth off logging locally and then sync periodically? I doubt it but haven't dove into it
- eric_the_read 7y ago
  I've done that occasionally, over a weekend when I left my phone at home or something. Doesn't happen often, obviously, but it does have some small number of days of local logging.
- abeyer 7y ago
  The logging works ok while off bluetooth...but be aware that _any_ changes are basically impossible in that state. Even basic watch functionality like changing the time or setting an alarm require a bluetooth link, the software, and an internet connection back to the fitbit servers.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    Well, that's a conpletely pointless limitation. Nothing of good was lost...

harikb 7y ago

1. Just so we are clear, after having gone through 5 "lifetimes" of fitbit and probably 15 across the family, one thing I can tell you is that the software is buggy with no end in sight. Fitbit could definitely use better software. 2. If Google didn't integrate their Auth, the same community will be complaining about the lack of compatibility.

papln 7y ago
There's a difference betewen integrating one auth and disintegrating all others. Should my fitbit be bricked if I make a wrongthink comment on YouTube?
magashna 7y ago
I don't think fitbit will be improved considering how jank WearOS can be

clairity 7y ago

> “I actually agree with other commenters: Google just doesn't know what it's about anymore. It has no overriding vision.” it’s pretty apparent to me that after google finally got over wanting to be facebook, google now wants to be apple. and they’re desperately trying not to be microsoft, even though that’s what they mostly are. in the beginning, google had a unique identity (quirky & clever) and vision (organize the world’s information). now they look to others to figure out who to be. it’s like the small town high school football star who never moved on.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
paulddraper 7y ago
> small town high school football star That's odd thing to call the biggest software company* in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_c... * Alphabet
- dastbe 7y ago
  That wiki doesn't justify your statement. It's leveraging a list from 2017, but using Alphabet's market cap from 2019? And regardless, the actual market caps on that page would say Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world. I have no idea what Forbes is using for its ranking but it is obviously not by valuation. EDIT: And it should arguably be Apple, but for some reason neither Apple nor Amazon are software companies?
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    The Wikipedia article sorts by sales. Not sure why the years are like that, but the relative values are similar in 2019. [1] [2] > for some reason neither Apple nor Amazon are software companies? Because they aren't software companies? Or at least principally software companies. Amazon is categorized as an retail company. [3] Apple is categorized as a computer hardware company. [4] Nitpicking aside, I think my point stands about a $800B+ company. [1] https://www.forbes.com/companies/alphabet/?list=global2000#50408eaa540e https://www.forbes.com/companies/alphabet/?list=global2000#5... [2] https://www.forbes.com/companies/microsoft/?list=global2000#6ea1826773f7 https://www.forbes.com/companies/microsoft/?list=global2000#... [3] https://www.forbes.com/companies/amazon/?list=global2000#2c45161e6fb8 https://www.forbes.com/companies/amazon/?list=global2000#2c4... [3] https://www.forbes.com/companies/apple/?list=global2000#3d047b735355 https://www.forbes.com/companies/apple/?list=global2000#3d04...

SirLotsaLocks 7y ago

forgive my ignorance, but what's a xoogler

markus92 7y ago
Ex googler
pacificmint 7y ago
From the context, I’d guess it’s an “Ex Googler”, in other words a former google employee.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xingjiping 7y ago
The Microsoft variant would be xing, I presume.

extropy 7y ago

Fitbit already runs on Google cloud [1], IMO this has been in the making for some time already. [1] https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/new-collaboration-fitbit-drive-positive-health-outcomes https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/inside-google-cloud/new...

plexicle 7y ago

Wow what a bunch of FUD.

dang 7y ago
Maybe so, but please post substantively here. I know that takes time and effort, but it's always an option to just not post anything. The site guidelines particularly ask: "Please don't post shallow dismissals [...] A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

acchow 7y ago

"Google just doesn't know what it's about anymore." Isn't it an organization optimized for enabling engineers to increase leverage? That's why things get rewritten into [language/framework du jour].

m0zg 7y ago
I think they do. They're the same thing they've always been: an advertising company. They can only become something else when the majority of their income is derived from something else. Which it currently isn't.

SquishyPanda23 7y ago

> [language/framework du jour]. Is this an accurate description of Google? I thought they used the same 4-5 languages they've used since the beginning of time, maybe minus perl and plus kotlin.

qroshan 7y ago

Ummm. Fitbit was already on the downward spiral. So, they'll take this lifeline from Google. Thank you very much

johannes1234321 7y ago

> as in, Google didn't buy you just for the team Or for the data ... even better profiles of people, including people who tried avoiding giving Google that data. Probably time for such users to send GDPR notices (If EU citizens)