30 ms·

So this may be a counter argument to the "Hacker" culture, but here goes. Hopefully this can spark an interesting discussion. I own a fitbit, and have loved it

So this may be a counter argument to the "Hacker" culture, but here goes. Hopefully this can spark an interesting discussion. I own a fitbit, and have loved it. I don't regret paying the $99 for it. I log into the web site, and see my daily totals, and the little graph showing when my activity spikes were. At the end of a grueling day walking around New York City, I can tell my wife that we took 20,000 steps and that's a bit interesting. It's useful and interesting - only to a point. So after reading this post, my main question is "Why?" Why do you need minute-by-minute access to pedometer data? What use is it, really? The OP says, basically, "out of curiosity". OK, so hack the thing. There's a number of links for intercepting that data during the sync process. But can you fault fitbit for not providing data that noone (not even the company itself) needs? What data can the fitbit give you on a minute-by-minute basis that is remotely useful or interesting? It's just a pedometer. At the end of the day, it tells you you took 10,000 steps or whatever. It's also interesting that you walked 50 miles this month, or have walked up steps to the level of a helicopter flies. Or how many miles you've walked this year. But minute-by-minute?

ISL 14y ago
Spectral analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density_estimation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density_estimation Without frequent sampling, you can't get access to high frequency information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency An example (not for regular sampling, but I hope it gets the point across): if a pedometer records the time of every footfall through the day, you can discern whether your pace is faster on Tuesdays than Sundays, even if you take the same number of steps. If those data are aggregated into steps/hour, you'll never see it. The lack of open access to the data acquired by a FitBit (I'd been considering buying one) is a certain dealbreaker.
ejain 14y ago
The total number of steps in neat, but I'm more interested in seeing how often and how long I move (or don't move). I consider 20,000 steps followed by 6 hours of non-stop slouching in front of the computer less ideal than just 10,000 steps but never sitting for more than an hour at a time. Fitbit doesn't provide this analysis, but I can do it myself with access to minute-by-minute data.

ISL 14y ago

Spectral analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density_estimation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_density_estimation Without frequent sampling, you can't get access to high frequency information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency An example (not for regular sampling, but I hope it gets the point across): if a pedometer records the time of every footfall through the day, you can discern whether your pace is faster on Tuesdays than Sundays, even if you take the same number of steps. If those data are aggregated into steps/hour, you'll never see it. The lack of open access to the data acquired by a FitBit (I'd been considering buying one) is a certain dealbreaker.

ejain 14y ago

The total number of steps in neat, but I'm more interested in seeing how often and how long I move (or don't move). I consider 20,000 steps followed by 6 hours of non-stop slouching in front of the computer less ideal than just 10,000 steps but never sitting for more than an hour at a time. Fitbit doesn't provide this analysis, but I can do it myself with access to minute-by-minute data.