Buying Fitbit Won't Save Google's Failing Wear OS (androidpolice.com) 27
David Ruddock of AndroidPolice technology blog tries to make sense of last week's $2.1 billion acquisition of Fitbit by Google. He argues that Fitbit's offerings -- hardware, software, engineering talent, or even patent wall -- can't save Google's wearable operating system Wear OS. From his column: Hardware is what Google is after, with a blog post cleatly stating its acquisition of Fitbit is about future Wear OS devices, meaning you can probably kiss Fitbit's unloved smartwatch OS goodbye. So, that means we can count on Google leveraging Fitbit's renowned hardware to finally give Wear OS the horsepower and capabilities it needs to compete with Apple, right? Well, no. Fitbit's smartwatches have been most lauded for their long battery life, which has historically been enabled by extremely slow but highly power-efficient processors. The Versa 2 allegedly comes with significant performance improvements, but as a smartwatch, it just isn't very... smart. Michael Fisher points out in his review that the Versa 2's near week-long life on a single charge is only impressive when looked at in a very generous light. The Versa 2 doesn't have GPS, the battery only lasts that long when not using the always-on display (with AoD, it's closer to 3 days), the watch itself doesn't work for almost anything but fitness tracking on its own, and most of your interactions with it end up happening on your smartphone anyway. I can also tell you from experience that the Apple Watch Series 5 lasts about two days on a charge with the always-on display enabled (and Samsung's watches last even longer), so Fitbit managing a day more which a much less useful watch isn't exactly game-changing technology.
In short, Fitbit's products are not ones Google should be excited about buying. The hardware is nothing special, and the software is clearly going in the dumpster. What has Google bought, then? The sad, very practical truth is probably patents and engineers. Fitbit does develop at least some of its hardware in-house, and likely has a decent number of patents related to fitness tracking and basic wearable technology, including those stemming from its acquisition of Pebble. Its product engineers would receive resources and tools at Google that Fitbit may not have afforded them. In short: Google's purchase is almost certainly a speculative one. Google is hoping that Fitbit's technology portfolio and its engineering talent can create a better, faster, stronger Wear OS watch. That isn't the kind of acquisition that screams "our product is successful," it's one that looks far more like a Hail Mary from a company that is rapidly losing any hope of remaining relevant in the wearables space. A more cynical view of Google's acquisition might argue that this is more about Fitbit's brand and users than anything else. If Google simply markets its in-house smartwatches as Fitbits running Wear OS, it would be more able to tap into Fitbit's existing customer base and retail relationships. Customer base is something Wear OS is sorely missing at the moment, and Fitbit is a brand that many consumers recognize, albeit mostly for the company's "dumb" fitness trackers, not its smartwatches. Speaking of, given Google's focus on Wear OS as part of this acquisition, my guess is that those more popular but very basic trackers will be discontinued.
In short, Fitbit's products are not ones Google should be excited about buying. The hardware is nothing special, and the software is clearly going in the dumpster. What has Google bought, then? The sad, very practical truth is probably patents and engineers. Fitbit does develop at least some of its hardware in-house, and likely has a decent number of patents related to fitness tracking and basic wearable technology, including those stemming from its acquisition of Pebble. Its product engineers would receive resources and tools at Google that Fitbit may not have afforded them. In short: Google's purchase is almost certainly a speculative one. Google is hoping that Fitbit's technology portfolio and its engineering talent can create a better, faster, stronger Wear OS watch. That isn't the kind of acquisition that screams "our product is successful," it's one that looks far more like a Hail Mary from a company that is rapidly losing any hope of remaining relevant in the wearables space. A more cynical view of Google's acquisition might argue that this is more about Fitbit's brand and users than anything else. If Google simply markets its in-house smartwatches as Fitbits running Wear OS, it would be more able to tap into Fitbit's existing customer base and retail relationships. Customer base is something Wear OS is sorely missing at the moment, and Fitbit is a brand that many consumers recognize, albeit mostly for the company's "dumb" fitness trackers, not its smartwatches. Speaking of, given Google's focus on Wear OS as part of this acquisition, my guess is that those more popular but very basic trackers will be discontinued.
Fitbit? (Score:2, Funny)
What is this? 2016? That is like buying Blackberry in 2011.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this? 2016? That is like buying Blackberry in 2011.
Think like a surveillance advertising company. Fitbit represents a motherlode of data about people's lifestyles, sleep patterns, activity, and where they do it. Google doesn't care about smartwatches. Google cares about surveilling people and monetizing what it learns.
Sounds great (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like a smart watch. But most of them try to do too many things (like replace my phone). I'd rather just have something that doesn't need charged every 4 hours and can tell me whether a notification or call is important enough to take my phone out of my pocket.
Re:Sounds great (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Ditto everything you said. Add on top the battery life. I have a Charge 3.They say it has a 7 day battery life, but mine has lasted as long as 9 days without a charge. However, I now charge mine once a week on Sunday afternoons when I know I'm not going to be overly active. It only takes about an hour to reach 100%.
I originally had considered an Apple Watch, but I knew I wanted it for sleep tracking (in addition to the other things you outlined), but the Apple watch only has an 18 hour battery life. I tho
Re: (Score:2)
Technically possible, but politically inexpedient? (Score:2)
I would like a smart watch. But most of them try to do too many things (like replace my phone). I'd rather just have something that doesn't need charged every 4 hours and can tell me whether a notification or call is important enough to take my phone out of my pocket.
Gee, sounds like you want a Huawei Band 2, but not politically feasible now... Newer models seem much inferior, too. Just because a good product can be designed doesn't mean they'll keep selling it, eh?
My main reaction to the topic is surprise that the google got FitBit so cheaply. Evidently the stock markets don't yet understand the carrot-stick value of this kind of ultra-personal information.
My secondary reaction sounds like a synergy joke, but I mean it sincerely. It is quite possible that the Wear OS d
Re: (Score:2)
Get a Mi band. $25, 20 days battery life.
If you want something a little bigger the Amazfit Bit, also by Xiaomi, has 45 days for $55.
I remember when Digital Watches were a neat Idea. (Score:3)
Early Digital Watches costed hundreds/thousands of dollars. And now they prizes in gumball machines (probably combined with something else, so we don't fully get ripped off from that quarter)
Smart Watches today are just as bad. They try to give you "Health Monitoring" features. Mostly from a bunch of untested products without any real health benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.” - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Re:I remember when Digital Watches were a neat Ide (Score:4, Insightful)
Mechanical watches are an affectation beloved by boomers. In 50 years nobody will care anymore.
A $14 Casio watch is better than a thousand dollar boomer mechanical wristwatch.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people aren't techies. Watches are still mostly a fashion statement. Mechanical watches will still be a thing for centuries to come.
Re: (Score:1)
So that is why there are 10K USD watches out there being bought by hipster's? Do you remove your head from your ass once in a while and just look around?
Thought not. - My watch is not mechanical - I gave up on Mechanical watches in the early 70's, long before the best of you ran down your daddy's leg.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
For a watch, and for the money, you should probably go with a classic mechanical watch. Smart Watches will be dated within a few years
Ok Boomer.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, you're pretty on the ball, SK.. Why on earth would you resort to "idiot speaker insult of the day" (you can tell that the great fascination with creating more ways to insult people doesn't really go down well with me)?
I actually think the OP is pretty accurate.. The 'modern' smartwatch we have now is pretty much a blip along the way to something that's beneficial.
I have a decent analog wrist watch that I've had for near 20 years, and it still doesn't look anything like dated.
I have a fitbit for
Re: (Score:2)
Within a decade or so a lot of people will be having the connection to the phone (or whatever the portable computer evolves into) wired into their nervous system, and many of the sensors will have evolved from micro-devices running off batteries to implanted nano-devices running off their metabolism. It will be expensive and primitive at first, but technology is evolving at an exponential pace and that situation won't last long.
Re: (Score:1)
I have used the same digital watch (not a smart watch) for 19 years. It just needs a batter about once a year. I will most likely get rid of it when they stop making batteries for it.
Re: (Score:1)
I have a god damned watch. I have a Fitbit that sits in my pocket and records what I want it to record. (steps, stairs and activity levels - it displays burned and the time) I do not need a god damned watch, my watch needs a battery once a year and has several stopwatch function, altimeter and compass. I sync with the Fitbit app when I decide to turn on Bluetooth and sync. My partners Fitbit watch turns on every time their wrist is turned - really intrusive in theaters - god damned thing goes off like a fla
But what will save globalization? (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I left my Fitbit when the band came off after a few months of use. Fortunately, that experience was long enough to decide it wasn't actually useful anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the user data *and* the brand. The hardware, software, and patents can all be dumped.
Pebble (Score:2)