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.
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.
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.
I'm also not for this. I wasn't for nest either. I now trust the device on my wrist less.
The company waiting for this to happen missed out on the deal.
Nobody wins here, except for a very small group of already outrageously powerful and rich people. Any regular human being will at best gain nothing from this and at worst have all of their information inserted into the Google silo.
Walmart is uniquely set up to become the first FOQNE.
It's bad when Nazis and Nazi-adjacent folks don't get a platform because they're my... uh...
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.
If you told me this was a failed attempt at obvious sarcasm now, I'd totally still believe you.
It's good to be able to integrate that information. It's bad to be forced to let Google integrate that information. I dislike it because Google isn't known for letting users choose.
They also know what you searched, watched or visited before and after having sex.
There's a lot of info they can pull out of that little device.
The database they bought is worth every penny.
"google/apple data control monopolies are killing products i like. But that is fine because that makes those products cheap for google/apple and i love them."
However, I sincerely doubt Fitbit would have been worth anywhere near as much under those conditions.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Other than that, it's a pretty nice device. Unfortunately it requires a subscription to get the most out of it.
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.
I wanted to like them, but the quality of the product was lacking, and I'm happier with the Apple Watch.
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')
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.
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-smartwa...
Why can't I have an entirely offline driven system? Data stays local, no ability to upload it online at all, and all processing is done without ever needing the internet.
That's a key criteria if I ever was thinking of getting a smart wearable, I'm not going to generate even more data that can be profited from and potentially used against me.
It's increasingly looking like storing data is a huge responsibility (although, if it is ever leaked, sadly humans don't tend to see prison time for this crime).
What we need is a clause that says "if this data ever touches the internet whether accidental or otherwise the CEO goes straight to jail, are you sure about this?".
Sadly, I think society as a whole is just "used" to this by now and a second thought is rarely given, disappointing this merger was approved, especially when the EU is investigating several "anti trusts", why give them even more power?
Oh well, I'll see you fellow HN readers on the next "major data leakage from misconfigured MongoDB and nobody is punished" thread.
I'm as irritated as you at data leaks from negligence, but jail? I thought jail was not supposed to be for "punishment" but rather to protect the public from someone too dangerous to allow free, and even then it should mainly target "rehabilitation."
You're now talking about using it clearly just for punishment (which I would argue we do all over the place, totally inconsistent with it's stated purpose). This is before we discuss whether jail is torture. Even if the "jail" is well regulated to prevent thing like violence and sexual abuse, it's terrible to lock a person in a cage. There are plenty of studies about the effects that has on a person's mind. Then you consider that you're soft blackballed from employment (and therefore society) when you get a "record" and can't pass a background check, and that the positive feedback loop leads to a life of poverty, crime, and suffering that is avoidable.
Please consider the significance of what you are arguing for here.
Please don't assume that anyone with a different view hasn't considered the significance of their position.
Handling data is a privilege, not a right, and can come at a huge cost. Just look at Parler for example, they weren't even stripping EXIF data which depending on how you look at is is either great for those involved to be tracked and arrested or a terrifying oversight that will lead to huge repercussions...
Data can end lives, this has been proven time and again, it's just as dangerous as a knife or gun in certain circumstances and the crime of having it leaked must have an appropriate punishment
Companies with armies of lawyers are pretty good at establishing plausible deniability, so the "because your employees made a mistake" argument, while you advanced it in good faith, is constantly exploited as an excuse.
It seems broken that I also have to have a phone, app store access to get a device to drive the pixels for data it already has.
Every piece of hardware that does this is effectively "app store locked", your phone is now your software dongle for your hardware.
Some functions, like sleep tracking, are too computationally intensive to do on a wrist computer.
The answer as to why other companies store data online should be obvious: There's a business can for having access to that data.
Because that's less profitable for the corporate data barons.
or when
It may not be much, but I feel a lot more at ease using their products than what Fitbit is going to be handing over to Google.
I'm guessing they automatically hire some, and interview others who are maybe less core to the business. They can always layoff later if it doesn't end up being a fit.
Such a fucked up thing that that's legal in some parts of the world. "Ah I don't know if we should hire these people or not, let's just hire them now and if we don't need them, fire them later. We can tell them a week before or something" just fills the air with smug MBAs not understanding that some people work for a living, not for fun.
Genuine Q: even if the employees don't take kindly to it, does it matter?
You have to ask yourself, why don't we want companies to sell our data in the first place? What's wrong with a third party having it? Its out of fear of them abusing that data. So then you have to ask yourself, what counts as abuse? To me, its any time a company uses the data against me, in order to make me spend money or buy products. This is EXACTLY what Google does with my data. They use it to find out what the best adverts to serve me are, that give the highest likelihood that I will click on them and buy something. Given the amount of garbage adverts they have, I do not trust Google for a second: I've seen plenty of Google and Youtube adverts for outright scams, exploitative garbage like Raid Shadow Legends, have heard reports of malware being served, etc. As long as Google happily serve these adverts on their network (and they don't even respond to reporting the adverts, as plenty of HN submissions have shown), I don't believe they can be trusted, in general and certainly not with my data.
Therefore, I do not want Google to have any data on me and that's why I am against this and other acquisitions.
Besides just the data, its also Googles record for shutting down services they buy and their non-existent customer support.
Genuine question - have you had many experiences where you bought something due to a highly targeted ad and shortly after regretted the purchase?
Recent examples: Google tracking users per Chrome installation ID [1], Chrome exempting Google sites from user site data setting [2], Chrome experimenting with silently proxying user traffic through their servers [3].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22236106 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24817304 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25337995
Also, Google has the capability to do much more damage with my personal information than most other organizations on earth.
Ultimately, I don't trust them, and I can't opt out of their data collection. (Yes, I've seen their opt-out page. It doesn't stop them from building ad profiles when I browse third party sites, mapping my back yard, discriminating against me with ReCaptcha, mapping my wifi ssid location without my consent, or doing countless other things I'd rather they not do, and that I never gave them permission to do.)
Also enjoy the paperweight when they kill your Google account for whatever random reason (we won't even tell you why and no appeals, have fun!)
But Google acquiring them makes me feel like they'll last a long time, and I won't have to switch ecosystems yet again (I was coming from Microsoft Band).
I would have loved it if FitBit could have remained independent, but basically impossible in today's messed up competitive environment.
But I do understand that shady stuff at big companies have bigger blast radius, as they have more users, and often more diverse data, but I trust them way more than random startup.
1) the fear of Google owning data is that they will be able to target us more and more. As if our internet behavior data wasn't enough, now they have our biological data.
2) the fact that they don't sell it misses the point because in fact they are the party we don't want the data to get to (along with Facebook et all). And you can bet your ass they'll sell it when they strapped for cash.
3) I would definitely not rather my data he with a tech giant who can map it with all my other data that they currently have.
No thanks and no deal.
Dear Customer,
We are sorry for improperly sending out the "Broken
Heart" alert to you on January 21, 2023. We should
have sent you the "She's Pregnant" alert. In the
future, please ensure both you and your dating partners
are running the same OS version. Thank you for your
understanding.
sorry,
FizzyBaneFitness
Now I think about the fact that I just looked someone up on contacts.google.com, then added a visit with them to calendar.google.com, and talked with them about it via gmail.com. They know so much about me already, and now they'll have my health history.
The only silver lining is that their security is probably better, and my data is less likely to be hacked and stolen.
But otherwise... Looking forward to a nice Linux/open software fitness watch, from a Kickstarter or other effort, so some of us can take better control of our data.
Haven't bought one yet, but the PineTime watch from Pine64 seems nice. There's apparently already a FOSS os/firmware or two as well.
My Versa 2 has been operating like a champ since the day I got it when it came out. I push it too the limit in the outdoors with activities like surfing, snorkeling, et cetera.
Every year I buy the Apple Watch thinking this will be the year I switch. But again, just returned it on Friday. Hardware is super impressive, but it just feels like putting an iPad on my wrist. I don't want a computer on my wrist I just want to be healthy. And the battery life on the Versa 2 is just so much better. I put it on and only have to take it off about once a week for an hour to charge.
This all happened during the first lockdown, so I had to wait weeks for the stores to open and get it replaced.
But the replacement is going strong, I've had it for 9 months now.
When it breaks, they generally offer a free replacement or the option to buy a newer version at half price, so since my first in 2016, I've had six or seven — three or four replacements and two half-price upgrades. (Charge HR replaced once or twice, Blaze replaced once, and Charge 3 replaced once.)
I suspect I'm still a profitable customer, but I suspect they'll become a lot stingier eventually.
My main concern with switching to a different brand is that I'm worried that they're be more breakable and less readily replaced. (Also, I'm on Android, so there are too many options and I can't decide.)
I work for Fitbit. I don't speak for Fitbit, but now that the deal is closed I can share my own opinions and ask my own questions.
What makes you think Google wants Apple to have the only good smart watch? That would be the main effect of sunsetting Fitbit.
Nest still exists after their 2014 acquisition by Google, and Nest is not as important to any other part of Google as Fitbit is to Android. Why would they be more inclined to sunset Fitbit?
That aside, if they end up tying Fitbit accounts to Google accounts, the whole jig is up anyway, because no-one wants to buy a hardware product whose operation depends upon not having Google shut your account down with no recourse other than to raise a stink on sites like HN.
Chances are that Fitbit won't be around 2-3 years from now, hence no real reason to invest in a product from them now.
Wear OS shows how little Google care about good smart watches. It's six years old and still bad, if they wanted it to be good they would've fixed it years ago.
That's very debatable, considering the smartwatches from Samsung, Fossil, Garmin...
And as a bit of a metric nerd the Garmin data exports rock.
Oh, and I haven't charged it in over a week.
My combo is Apple Watch by day, Oura Ring by night. I don’t often wear them together.
Very happy with the setup and would recommend.
Disclosure: I also own Garmin Stock, but am a FitBit user (owned FitBit stock too but sold when the GOOG acquisition was announced).
Only issue I noticed was the heart rate monitor was wildly inaccurate but this was on a much older version (the 2 I think, maybe the mi band 5 has fixed this)
We've considered other ways of doing this that will preserve our requirements to keep customer data private and unable to be tampered with. We will likely make it more flexible in the future, but this is the scheme that has worked since the company was founded, almost 14 years ago.
I couldn't do it on the watch itself. I couldn't do it on my phone from the app. The only solution was to log in to fitbit.com in a browser, change a setting there, then re-sync my device via the app.
I think regulation is the only way to change this because it's a gravy train.
This sort of thing is as dead as a doornail, unfortunately.
I understand there's a feature set trade off, I don't necessarily want a wearable that connects to the internet itself.
It's kinda cool but it's no Pebble, or any kind of daily driver watch.
Your photo manager
Your search engine
Your document storage service
Your health monitor
Your contacts list
Your video hosting facility
Your calendar
Your document editor
Your location history
Your music engine
And I have no doubt I'm missing a load here, point being why the fuck has the EU not stepped in at this point and said "woah buddy, you're a tad too big to be this unregulated".
The EU needs to enforce stricter regulation across all Google products, such as making it illegal to "ban" or lock out an account by means of an AI facility without human resolution within 6 hours or less (6 hours is a maximum, anything above incurs an hourly fine).
These must be regulated like a public service, because the risk of losing access to an online account can be devastating.
The onus, however, is on YOU to diversify, have redundant email addresses (forward+store a copy) so in the event one is RIP you are not boned entirely.
Your password manager
Your 2FA authenticator
Your notes manager
Your domain name provider
Your cloud provider
Your browser
Your operating system
Your smart home
Your phone number
Your mobile ISP
Your analytics provider
Battery life is your biggest loss if you leave Fitbit, almost nobody was making smartwatches as battery efficient.
Personally, Ive been using Garmin smartwatches for a few years now and they last about a week, with O2 sat scanner enabled over the night. Definitely been happy with them.
The mi band might suit your needs better.
Will probably upgrade to the Versa 3 or Sense, but the 2 is just awesome. I've also had the Charge 2, Charge, Ionic, Microsoft Band 2, and Microsoft Band 1. Versa 2 was a major leap.
Finally, I still consider these things early adopter territory, but in 10 years I think everyone and their dog will be wearing one.
I hope Google fixes this
My steps stick at 0, then suddenly are the total of the last 3 days' worth. I log food, and it re-populates the "quantity" field with the old value after I edit it, sometimes up to 8-10 times in a row. My sleep data takes a roulette-spin amount of time to go get processed in the cloud and redownloaded, and even once the main dashboard has the info, the "Sleep" detail page will refuse to admit that I slept last night for another 3d20 minutes.
It's like someone connecting the pieces of a car with Slinkys instead of bolts because they're more flexible. If I didn't like the hardware so much I'd have switched ages ago.
I purchased a Mi Band 5 for $35 which is a vastly better device than fitbit equivalents for a quarter of the price. You can use it without data being sent to the cloud if you use the open source package GadgetBridge.
Gadgetbridge is mentioned regularly in these threads, thank you! Privacy is one of our main goals. We support quite a few bands and watches and the list of devices and features is growing. We are also happy for contributing members, so if you think that your movement data and notifications should remain private and can do some Android development, stop by, we are at Codeberg. https://codeberg.org/Freeyourgadget/Gadgetbridge
Those products are awesome if you want a lower-end fitness tracker. Originally I bought a Mi Band 4 because I saw it reported itself as a bluetooth HR accessory, meaning you could get continuous heart rate on bluetooth if you paired your device -- whereas FitBit's protocol was encrypted and proprietary. Did some cool stuff with that (a shirt with an LED matrix screen that pulsed at the wearers heart rate!)
Wouldn't say the hardware is "vastly better", I found the continuous heart rate monitoring to be a bit sluggish -- i.e. it averaged out HR over a longer period than the fitbits I've had did, so you were less likely to detect the peaks and recovery periods during excercise. Otherwise it was much of a muchness, but cheaper. I imagine the cheaper HW probably meant corners were cut with the sensors and firmware, but being hardly the athlete I didn't care outside of heart rate sensing.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mc.miband1...
The bot based support question answers is a complete joke. Maybe not Google's fault but the connectivity between the watches and the phone is the most flakey thing ever. Considering a $20 Xiaomi Band can keep a bluetooth connection forever I don't think it is the hardware. The rest of the software stack is hobbled my a java stack that needs gigs to run.
I’ll probably get an Apple Watch but I’d prefer something eink and “dumber” with just clock, heartrate, steps, stairs and GPS, no accounts and no forced uploading to their servers would be ideal.
I love the FitBit device though. If there’s some opensource way to keep using it without Google being involved I’ll probably try that.
Google is not a company that respects their users. It's that simple. Apple doesn't respect developers, but it does respect users. Google respects neither. I'd say the current situation in tech is not especially positive for users generally, but having a product tied to Google, Facebook, or Amazon would be your worst case scenario, and I'm actively trying to excise these products from my life.
I have gadgetbridge with a Lenovo WatchX. Cheap, cheerful, works ok without competing with apple watch for quality. Great battery life.
What else is there?
You may point to other competitive devices that do things better, but I think that just shows how hard it is to compete in the smartphone business.
Can't make good watch hardware OR software? Just buy part of Fossil and Fitbit to handle that.
Can't make good smart home devices to compete with Amazon's Ring or Simplisafe? Just buy Nest, Revolv, and a huge stake of ADT.
etc. etc.
And both of them have had major usability, integrations and stability issues over the years that are hard to ignore.
In an ideal world, I wish that small companies like Fitbit could compete with Google and Apple and release good all-inclusive smartwatches that developers can use to bukld good general-purpose apps, with a well-designed interface, and that are also very solid fitness trackers.
Unfortunately we aren't in an ideal world though, so I can just hope that this acquisition helps bringing some proper vision in the current chaos that reigns in the WearOS and Fit departments.
Aplhabet has non trivial stake in Oscar health, and this fitbit acquisition plays right into being price health insurance policies for users.
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/01/google-completes-acquisi...
As a mobile developer, when we do any Health integration, the topmost platforms by usage are Apple Health and Fitbit, followed by Samsung Health and lastly Google Fit.
This easily lets them catapult in second place.
I pray that this time, it's different, but I'm not holding my breath.
I consider it a massive failure of our governments that whilst acknowledging Google is a monopoly and engaging in antitrust cases against them, they also permitted Google to buy a multibillion dollar company that will expand their monopoly.
Please make it stop....
I picked one up last year and have been super pleased with it.