14 ms·

I'm sure the sentiment here will be very much against this acquisition, but keep in mind that Fitbit was getting killed and would likely have gone out of busine

I'm sure the sentiment here will be very much against this acquisition, but keep in mind that Fitbit was getting killed and would likely have gone out of business without this. It is tough for a company like Fitbit to compete with Apple & Samsung. This should lead to more competition by making it possible for Fitbit to compete with Apple. If it doesn't then the acquisition was a failure for Google anyway - Fitbit's current market share is not acceptable for a company like Google.

Dig1t 6y ago
The reason why it's difficult for them to compete with Apple and Samsung isn't readily apparent to me. There still seems to be a large hole in the smartwatch market for a GOOD Android-compatible smartwatch. There are a lot of options, but, to me, none of them are as polished or feature-heavy as the Apple Watch. It doesn't seem that one of these companies would need access to any special internal APIs or anything to be competitive, so I don't see what Google could add other than lots of money and SWE hours. If Google wants to compete in this space they should have been forced to build it themselves. IMO letting Fitbit die would have been better for users privacy-wise.
- tomComb 6y ago
  I'm a long time Fitbit user and I think their products are great. From that perspective I'm just happy that they will survive. > so I don't see what Google could add other than lots of money and SWE hours That matters. > IMO letting Fitbit die would have been better for users privacy-wise. Have you seen what some companies do when they are on the brink of insolvency? They start firing engineers, best practices lapse, and they start monetizing everything. And have you seen the EU data privacy conditions? And finally, of the companies that could have bought them, which has a better record of keeping their users' data private then Google? But also, as a Fitbit user, if I wanted all my data deleted I could do that, but I absolutely do not. I want it kept private, supported, and crunched by a company like Google to our mutual advantage.
  - breck 6y ago
    Fellow long time FitBit user and agree with everything you said. Furthermore, I pay for FitBit Premium and would strongly encourage Google to always keep FitBit a paid product/service and never monetize it via ads. I don't have any expertise in this area, but my hunch from what I saw with Apple vs WhatsApp, is that in the long run sticking with paid products and not switching to Ads is better for success. Also, likely a lot harder to build up a base of paying users and if you throw that away would be a colossal mistake. Anyway, I'm not a business expert but am a passionate FitBit user and very happy about this acquisition because just like you I was worried for their survival.
  - IgorPartola 6y ago
    Again, Apple has a much better track record than Google when it comes to privacy. I can’t believe I’m defending them here, but honestly they’ve been the only tech giant that hasn’t sold out every bit of your personal info they had to make a quick buck. I suppose Netflix might be the other one but (a) I don’t know for a fact and (b) they aren’t exactly the fitness brand.
- snowwolf 6y ago
  The killer feature for me which lead me to me switching away was Fitbit Pay. They just don't have the take up by banks that the competition (Apple and Samsung) have. Maybe that would have changed, but if they integrate Google Pay instead, I may switch back.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    I much prefer contactless payment with my phone anyway. I usually find it very awkward trying to position my wrist near the NFC reader on the terminal.
    - Marsymars 6y ago
      I’ve always thought they should put the NFC chip on the bottom of the wrist rather than on the top - that seems like a much less awkward position.
- thenewwazoo 6y ago
  > There still seems to be a large hole in the smartwatch market for a GOOD Android-compatible smartwatch. In order for there to be a market, both sides have to exist: sellers and buyers. I'm not convinced Android users have the appetite for multi-hundred-dollar accessories the same way Apple users do, and given Apple's engineering skill and vertical integration, nobody is going to sell a smartwatch that's as good for less.
  - Marsymars 6y ago
    I’d buy the top-end Apple Watch today if it was compatible with my Android phone; as-is, the slate of compatible watches are too poor for me to bother with any of them. Though, I’m one person, so that doesn’t invalidate your point.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Garmin seems to find plenty of customers willing to buy high end smart watches that cost even more than Apple watches. Many of those Garmin devices are paired with Android phones. As one data point I just spent $1300 on a new top end Garmin watch and use it with Android.
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  What about the spot it started out in? A watch that keeps track of some vital signs. I don't want an Android-compatible smartwatch. I don't want a smartwatch at all. I want a simple "health" device. I got a new fitbit for Christmas because I couldn't even initialize it without installing their app on my smartphone. I don't want their app on my phone. I don't want it to report all my info to their servers. I don't want it to have access to my gps location, which is might be reporting in. My old fitbit doesn't need any of that at all, and I don't see the need for a new one (that would meet my needs) to, either.
  - Dig1t 6y ago
    I agree with you here, a simple health tracker is awesome. But also it seems to me that Google has a massive incentive to get as much data about you as possible. Which means releasing devices that collect as much biometric (and location) based data as possible, and setting defaults (just like Maps location history being turned on by default) that will automatically send all of this to Google servers. And as usual with Google, the vast majority will probably be sending their health data to Google unwittingly.
- nxc18 6y ago
  Unpopular opinion here, but I think the Fitbit versa (from 2018) was/is better than Apple Watch (latest) in significant ways, even when paired with iPhone. I replaced my versa with Apple Watch when the versa died. I don’t necessarily regret it, but it didn’t feel like an upgrade and came with significant downsides. In particular, Fitbit gives far more control over notifications, especially for built-in apps like messages. Fitbit makes media controls easily accessible - on Apple Watch, they’re always moving and hard to get back to especially during a workout. My main use case is skipping podcast commercials, so not being able to do that quickly is a problem. Battery life was much better on the versa. It also charged faster, so it would almost always be done charging after a shower, Apple Watch only sometimes is. Tldr there is definitely room to deliver a better product than Apple’s. Whether or not Google is capable of doing that is a different question that I won’t address.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    I love my Versa 3. I charge it for ~20 minutes every couple days, and I've literally never seen it below 50%.
  - dwighttk 6y ago
    >...media controls easily accessible - on Apple Watch, they’re always moving and hard to get back to especially during a workout. Swipe right from workout screen. (Finger moves right to left... not sure if that is swipe right or left :)
    - nxc18 6y ago
      Thank you so much! I’ve had my watch for 4 months, I don’t know why I didn’t see that earlier. I have been going to the app switcher this whole time.
      - dwighttk 6y ago
        One other thing is the big (non knob) button brings up three apps and somehow I have it so now playing is always one of them. Can’t remember how I set that up though. (Doesn’t help when someone keeps texting me and I want to stop the audio.)
- 01100011 6y ago
  Yeah, just picked up a Fitbit Sense since it's on sale at Costco. It's almost great, but has some serious flaws. The capacitive button is dumb. Not allowing me to upload music is dumb. The processor is slightly underpowered or the software needs optimizations because occasionally it has serious lag when swiping on the watch face. Having the watch accidentally turn on with full brightness while I'm trying to sleep just sucks. Other than that, it's a pretty nice device. Unfortunately it requires a subscription to get the most out of it.
m00x 6y ago
I have a Fitbit and I love this acquisition. I want to be able to put my fitness data in the rest of the Google ecosystem. The more data Google has on me, the more use I get out of Google's tools. I really don't care that it has tons of data on me, Google has been super responsible of my data and its uses. The risk/reward is 100% worth.
- judge2020 6y ago
  The assurance that it's not going to be used for Ads is the only thing that makes this acceptable. Instead of it being on some random fitbit server on someone's Cloud, it'll be held securely on Google servers.
  - eins1234 6y ago
    Really though, how long do we expect that arrangement to last? The Facebook WhatsApp thing makes it pretty clear to me that they can afford to walk back on that arrangement as soon as they feel they can afford to take the PR hit. For something with as small of a market share as Fitbit, I suspect that won't take very long at all.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Google/Fitbit has a legally-binding commitment for ten years. However, there are probably ways they can leap around that. For instance, new devices and a new platform, using the Fitbit talent and technology, but marketed as a new thing, could probably be used for advertising. Then they just need to get everyone over to their new health platform. I also think a ten year commitment is a very poor concession for the EU to have extracted: It just means they're punting off society being harmed a while. For a company that will likely be around in 100 years or more, IBM-style, that's not a good concession.
      - Marsymars 6y ago
        > I also think a ten year commitment is a very poor concession for the EU to have extracted: It just means they're punting off society being harmed a while. For a company that will likely be around in 100 years or more, IBM-style, that's not a good concession. I agree, but if they were in the business of extracting significant pro-consumer concessions, I can see some weird incentives building up: imagine a dystopian future in several decades where the only semi-pro-consumer companies are the goliaths that have decades’ worth of accumulated concessions, and consumer startups nearly-universally act in their own financial interest, making them unusable for people who care about their data/privacy/ads/etc., and regulators who are unwilling to burden startups with regulations that restrict them from competing with AmaGoogleFlix.
j0ba 6y ago
> Fitbit was getting killed and would likely have gone out of business If this is a reason for acquisition, then why wouldn't G*gle wait until they were "killed" so they could come in and buy their business for pennies on the dollar? We're fast approaching a dystopian Snow Crash world of all-powerful corporations, and you people are cheering it along. How can these both be true? - it's bad all US legacy media is owned by 5 corporations. - it's good for FB, Apple, Amazon and to buy up all adjacent business. I don't see how sharing data is a good argument for unchecked consolidation of power. I'm pretty sure Fitbit could export an open standard data format, and Google could consume one. But I guess rich people wouldn't be able to get even richer if they did that.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  >If this is a reason for acquisition, then why wouldn't G*gle wait until they were "killed" so they could come in and buy their business for pennies on the dollar? Because what Google wants to buy is their marketshare and existing userbase. I very much doubt fitbit has any tech or products google couldn't make themselves in a few months. The longer fitbit sucks compared to their competition the lower that becomes.
  - halfdan 6y ago
    This, and they want to hire the talent that built the product. If Fitbit were already a sinking ship for too long most senior folks would have left.
    - at-fates-hands 6y ago
      Great point. Hard to continue developing a product when the most talented people in the company have gone elsewhere already. They need the human capital in order to make sure it stays afloat and they get the requisite knowledge transfer. Then its anybody's guess what will happen. Google's track record of buying technology and then doing something better with it is not encouraging at all.
      - 6y ago
welder 6y ago
> This should lead to more competition by making it possible for Fitbit to compete with Apple. Fitness trackers are too basic. I can't wait to see if the Oneplus smart watch is any good. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/22/22196180/oneplus-smartwatch-2021-announcement-release-date-pete-lau-wearable https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/22/22196180/oneplus-smartwa...
dalbasal 6y ago
Does this count as more competition though? It may provide simple price competition, but I don't think price competition is a main reason for the anti-monopoly sentiment you are referring to. This is more about centralisation/decentralisation, data aggregation.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Google and Apple (or any other big tech pairing) pairing don't compete as strongly as we would like. Even ignoring the fact I don't want a stronger google, I also don't think this will provide meaningful competition to Apple at all.
rblatz 6y ago
I assume it's because every product I've bought from them was terrible quality hardware wise. The Aria scale just randomly can't upload weights, also it will randomly just turn on for a whole day thinking you are trying to weigh yourself and will stay in that mode until it kills the batteries. I've had multiple of their bands and they all lasted less than a year before they had something break. At my work we gave every employee a Fitbit charge hr, and within 6 months half of them had the band separate from the sensor. I had another Charge HR that one day turned off and then never turned back on after 3 months of use. I wanted to like them, but the quality of the product was lacking, and I'm happier with the Apple Watch.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nradov 6y ago
It wasn't just Apple and Samsung that were killing Fitbit. Garmin also took a lot of the fitness market.
HenryBemis 6y ago
>Fitbit to compete with Apple Fitbit is/was a mosquito, they could never surive an 'all out war' with Apple. Fitbit does not compete with Apple. Google does. The problem is that once Google gets their hands on our sweet data (in the off chance you don't have an android phone), then they will definitely put that data in 'good use'. I see some (marketable) benefits though... Fitbits can be tracked. Imagine walking past a store, a sensor with 'talk' with your fitbit, and pull your G-ad profile and a screen will display the ad you missed to see on your gmail. And this is what I need to see. Walking past a sex shop and being flashed this huge wierd looking dildo with lights and lasers, because Google 'knows' I enjoy sex and Star Wars (not combined though). And all that thanks to my FitBit bracelet :) (my android phone is security-hardened enough to not run in the background and/or transmit 'stuff')

Dig1t 6y ago

The reason why it's difficult for them to compete with Apple and Samsung isn't readily apparent to me. There still seems to be a large hole in the smartwatch market for a GOOD Android-compatible smartwatch. There are a lot of options, but, to me, none of them are as polished or feature-heavy as the Apple Watch. It doesn't seem that one of these companies would need access to any special internal APIs or anything to be competitive, so I don't see what Google could add other than lots of money and SWE hours. If Google wants to compete in this space they should have been forced to build it themselves. IMO letting Fitbit die would have been better for users privacy-wise.

tomComb 6y ago
I'm a long time Fitbit user and I think their products are great. From that perspective I'm just happy that they will survive. > so I don't see what Google could add other than lots of money and SWE hours That matters. > IMO letting Fitbit die would have been better for users privacy-wise. Have you seen what some companies do when they are on the brink of insolvency? They start firing engineers, best practices lapse, and they start monetizing everything. And have you seen the EU data privacy conditions? And finally, of the companies that could have bought them, which has a better record of keeping their users' data private then Google? But also, as a Fitbit user, if I wanted all my data deleted I could do that, but I absolutely do not. I want it kept private, supported, and crunched by a company like Google to our mutual advantage.
- breck 6y ago
  Fellow long time FitBit user and agree with everything you said. Furthermore, I pay for FitBit Premium and would strongly encourage Google to always keep FitBit a paid product/service and never monetize it via ads. I don't have any expertise in this area, but my hunch from what I saw with Apple vs WhatsApp, is that in the long run sticking with paid products and not switching to Ads is better for success. Also, likely a lot harder to build up a base of paying users and if you throw that away would be a colossal mistake. Anyway, I'm not a business expert but am a passionate FitBit user and very happy about this acquisition because just like you I was worried for their survival.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  Again, Apple has a much better track record than Google when it comes to privacy. I can’t believe I’m defending them here, but honestly they’ve been the only tech giant that hasn’t sold out every bit of your personal info they had to make a quick buck. I suppose Netflix might be the other one but (a) I don’t know for a fact and (b) they aren’t exactly the fitness brand.
snowwolf 6y ago
The killer feature for me which lead me to me switching away was Fitbit Pay. They just don't have the take up by banks that the competition (Apple and Samsung) have. Maybe that would have changed, but if they integrate Google Pay instead, I may switch back.
- JshWright 6y ago
  I much prefer contactless payment with my phone anyway. I usually find it very awkward trying to position my wrist near the NFC reader on the terminal.
  - Marsymars 6y ago
    I’ve always thought they should put the NFC chip on the bottom of the wrist rather than on the top - that seems like a much less awkward position.
thenewwazoo 6y ago
> There still seems to be a large hole in the smartwatch market for a GOOD Android-compatible smartwatch. In order for there to be a market, both sides have to exist: sellers and buyers. I'm not convinced Android users have the appetite for multi-hundred-dollar accessories the same way Apple users do, and given Apple's engineering skill and vertical integration, nobody is going to sell a smartwatch that's as good for less.
- Marsymars 6y ago
  I’d buy the top-end Apple Watch today if it was compatible with my Android phone; as-is, the slate of compatible watches are too poor for me to bother with any of them. Though, I’m one person, so that doesn’t invalidate your point.
- nradov 6y ago
  Garmin seems to find plenty of customers willing to buy high end smart watches that cost even more than Apple watches. Many of those Garmin devices are paired with Android phones. As one data point I just spent $1300 on a new top end Garmin watch and use it with Android.
RHSeeger 6y ago
What about the spot it started out in? A watch that keeps track of some vital signs. I don't want an Android-compatible smartwatch. I don't want a smartwatch at all. I want a simple "health" device. I got a new fitbit for Christmas because I couldn't even initialize it without installing their app on my smartphone. I don't want their app on my phone. I don't want it to report all my info to their servers. I don't want it to have access to my gps location, which is might be reporting in. My old fitbit doesn't need any of that at all, and I don't see the need for a new one (that would meet my needs) to, either.
- Dig1t 6y ago
  I agree with you here, a simple health tracker is awesome. But also it seems to me that Google has a massive incentive to get as much data about you as possible. Which means releasing devices that collect as much biometric (and location) based data as possible, and setting defaults (just like Maps location history being turned on by default) that will automatically send all of this to Google servers. And as usual with Google, the vast majority will probably be sending their health data to Google unwittingly.
nxc18 6y ago
Unpopular opinion here, but I think the Fitbit versa (from 2018) was/is better than Apple Watch (latest) in significant ways, even when paired with iPhone. I replaced my versa with Apple Watch when the versa died. I don’t necessarily regret it, but it didn’t feel like an upgrade and came with significant downsides. In particular, Fitbit gives far more control over notifications, especially for built-in apps like messages. Fitbit makes media controls easily accessible - on Apple Watch, they’re always moving and hard to get back to especially during a workout. My main use case is skipping podcast commercials, so not being able to do that quickly is a problem. Battery life was much better on the versa. It also charged faster, so it would almost always be done charging after a shower, Apple Watch only sometimes is. Tldr there is definitely room to deliver a better product than Apple’s. Whether or not Google is capable of doing that is a different question that I won’t address.
- JshWright 6y ago
  I love my Versa 3. I charge it for ~20 minutes every couple days, and I've literally never seen it below 50%.
- dwighttk 6y ago
  >...media controls easily accessible - on Apple Watch, they’re always moving and hard to get back to especially during a workout. Swipe right from workout screen. (Finger moves right to left... not sure if that is swipe right or left :)
  - nxc18 6y ago
    Thank you so much! I’ve had my watch for 4 months, I don’t know why I didn’t see that earlier. I have been going to the app switcher this whole time.
    - dwighttk 6y ago
      One other thing is the big (non knob) button brings up three apps and somehow I have it so now playing is always one of them. Can’t remember how I set that up though. (Doesn’t help when someone keeps texting me and I want to stop the audio.)
01100011 6y ago
Yeah, just picked up a Fitbit Sense since it's on sale at Costco. It's almost great, but has some serious flaws. The capacitive button is dumb. Not allowing me to upload music is dumb. The processor is slightly underpowered or the software needs optimizations because occasionally it has serious lag when swiping on the watch face. Having the watch accidentally turn on with full brightness while I'm trying to sleep just sucks. Other than that, it's a pretty nice device. Unfortunately it requires a subscription to get the most out of it.

m00x 6y ago

I have a Fitbit and I love this acquisition. I want to be able to put my fitness data in the rest of the Google ecosystem. The more data Google has on me, the more use I get out of Google's tools. I really don't care that it has tons of data on me, Google has been super responsible of my data and its uses. The risk/reward is 100% worth.

judge2020 6y ago
The assurance that it's not going to be used for Ads is the only thing that makes this acceptable. Instead of it being on some random fitbit server on someone's Cloud, it'll be held securely on Google servers.
- eins1234 6y ago
  Really though, how long do we expect that arrangement to last? The Facebook WhatsApp thing makes it pretty clear to me that they can afford to walk back on that arrangement as soon as they feel they can afford to take the PR hit. For something with as small of a market share as Fitbit, I suspect that won't take very long at all.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Google/Fitbit has a legally-binding commitment for ten years. However, there are probably ways they can leap around that. For instance, new devices and a new platform, using the Fitbit talent and technology, but marketed as a new thing, could probably be used for advertising. Then they just need to get everyone over to their new health platform. I also think a ten year commitment is a very poor concession for the EU to have extracted: It just means they're punting off society being harmed a while. For a company that will likely be around in 100 years or more, IBM-style, that's not a good concession.
    - Marsymars 6y ago
      > I also think a ten year commitment is a very poor concession for the EU to have extracted: It just means they're punting off society being harmed a while. For a company that will likely be around in 100 years or more, IBM-style, that's not a good concession. I agree, but if they were in the business of extracting significant pro-consumer concessions, I can see some weird incentives building up: imagine a dystopian future in several decades where the only semi-pro-consumer companies are the goliaths that have decades’ worth of accumulated concessions, and consumer startups nearly-universally act in their own financial interest, making them unusable for people who care about their data/privacy/ads/etc., and regulators who are unwilling to burden startups with regulations that restrict them from competing with AmaGoogleFlix.

j0ba 6y ago

> Fitbit was getting killed and would likely have gone out of business If this is a reason for acquisition, then why wouldn't G*gle wait until they were "killed" so they could come in and buy their business for pennies on the dollar? We're fast approaching a dystopian Snow Crash world of all-powerful corporations, and you people are cheering it along. How can these both be true? - it's bad all US legacy media is owned by 5 corporations. - it's good for FB, Apple, Amazon and to buy up all adjacent business. I don't see how sharing data is a good argument for unchecked consolidation of power. I'm pretty sure Fitbit could export an open standard data format, and Google could consume one. But I guess rich people wouldn't be able to get even richer if they did that.

thatguy0900 6y ago
>If this is a reason for acquisition, then why wouldn't G*gle wait until they were "killed" so they could come in and buy their business for pennies on the dollar? Because what Google wants to buy is their marketshare and existing userbase. I very much doubt fitbit has any tech or products google couldn't make themselves in a few months. The longer fitbit sucks compared to their competition the lower that becomes.
- halfdan 6y ago
  This, and they want to hire the talent that built the product. If Fitbit were already a sinking ship for too long most senior folks would have left.
  - at-fates-hands 6y ago
    Great point. Hard to continue developing a product when the most talented people in the company have gone elsewhere already. They need the human capital in order to make sure it stays afloat and they get the requisite knowledge transfer. Then its anybody's guess what will happen. Google's track record of buying technology and then doing something better with it is not encouraging at all.
    - 6y ago

welder 6y ago

> This should lead to more competition by making it possible for Fitbit to compete with Apple. Fitness trackers are too basic. I can't wait to see if the Oneplus smart watch is any good. https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/22/22196180/oneplus-smartwatch-2021-announcement-release-date-pete-lau-wearable https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/22/22196180/oneplus-smartwa...

dalbasal 6y ago

Does this count as more competition though? It may provide simple price competition, but I don't think price competition is a main reason for the anti-monopoly sentiment you are referring to. This is more about centralisation/decentralisation, data aggregation.

Ericson2314 6y ago

Google and Apple (or any other big tech pairing) pairing don't compete as strongly as we would like. Even ignoring the fact I don't want a stronger google, I also don't think this will provide meaningful competition to Apple at all.

rblatz 6y ago

I assume it's because every product I've bought from them was terrible quality hardware wise. The Aria scale just randomly can't upload weights, also it will randomly just turn on for a whole day thinking you are trying to weigh yourself and will stay in that mode until it kills the batteries. I've had multiple of their bands and they all lasted less than a year before they had something break. At my work we gave every employee a Fitbit charge hr, and within 6 months half of them had the band separate from the sensor. I had another Charge HR that one day turned off and then never turned back on after 3 months of use. I wanted to like them, but the quality of the product was lacking, and I'm happier with the Apple Watch.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nradov 6y ago

It wasn't just Apple and Samsung that were killing Fitbit. Garmin also took a lot of the fitness market.

HenryBemis 6y ago

>Fitbit to compete with Apple Fitbit is/was a mosquito, they could never surive an 'all out war' with Apple. Fitbit does not compete with Apple. Google does. The problem is that once Google gets their hands on our sweet data (in the off chance you don't have an android phone), then they will definitely put that data in 'good use'. I see some (marketable) benefits though... Fitbits can be tracked. Imagine walking past a store, a sensor with 'talk' with your fitbit, and pull your G-ad profile and a screen will display the ad you missed to see on your gmail. And this is what I need to see. Walking past a sex shop and being flashed this huge wierd looking dildo with lights and lasers, because Google 'knows' I enjoy sex and Star Wars (not combined though). And all that thanks to my FitBit bracelet :) (my android phone is security-hardened enough to not run in the background and/or transmit 'stuff')