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.
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.
Err...what? Earth, Maps, Docs, Waymo, Android, YouTube, WebRTC, Flights, Deepmind all come from acquisitions.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
Considering how absolutely dreadful Google's hardware (pixel line, pixel watch) is nowadays, and how unfinished all of their software is, no, Google would not be able to make any of that in a few months.
EDIT - never mind, Asus made both of those
Asus did make both, but I'm not sure either was as good as you recall, sadly.
Google would have absolutely no issue creating quality fitbit devices. Whether or not the market would be there for them to stay in long term, I don't know.
Sure, but they did come in and add real innovation to the product; for example, adding a secret microphone that wasn't disclosed to the customer.
Or those wonderful Android Watches, sorry wearOS, never mind, they aren't getting proper updates for ages now.
Seems to be a finished-ish enterprise product now.
The Chromecast works well most of the time. The ways it fails is ridiculous.
I did have some issues recently with being unable to pair it with specific Samsung phones, but it's a combination of it getting old and I assume issues with Google killing software (I don't want your Google Home !).
In a way I have worse issues with my Pebble Time… which Google now owns, to my displeasure. (But it is probably more open, so I have better chances fixing the issues myself in the long term…)
Personally, I'm curious how that worked out for them. The announcement of this purchase, and how they handled Nest, is what made me stop using my Fitbit.
"Imagine there was no such thing as a library, and that members of the current neoliberal policy consensus were to sit down today and invent it. They might create complicated tax expenditures to subsidize the poor purchasing and reselling books, like the wage support of the earned income tax credit. They might require people to rent books from approved private libraries, with penalties for those who don’t and vouchers for those who can’t afford it, like the individual mandate in the latest expansion of health care. They might come up with a program where they take on liability for books that go missing from private libraries and thereby boost profits for lenders themselves, like federally backed private student loans. Or maybe they’d create means-tested libraries only accessible to the poor, with a requirement that patrons document how impoverished they are month after month to keep their library card. Maybe they’d exempt the cost of private library cards from payroll taxes, or let anything calling itself a library pay nothing in taxes."
The company waiting for this to happen missed out on the deal.
I'm also not for this. I wasn't for nest either. I now trust the device on my wrist less.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you click through to the EU site
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
and read "Google's Commitment" on ads:
> Google will not use for Google Ads the health and wellness data collected from wrist-worn wearable devices and other Fitbit devices of users in the EEA, including search advertising, display advertising, and advertising intermediation products. This refers also to data collected via sensors (including GPS) as well as manually inserted data.
So this only covers European Economic Area, and it only covers Google Ads.
"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."
You are claiming that their thoughts are only the result of abusive conditioning.
IMO, that's an extremely arrogant position - "oh, if you disagree with me, it must be because you are not smart enough to actually think for yourself"
If you told me this was a failed attempt at obvious sarcasm now, I'd totally still believe you.
I have a friend who works for the government and laments at how much red tape there is to acquire or link any dataset and wishes for more data acquisition.
To be fair, her use cases were sincerely benign - being able to target people who qualify for more welfare/govt assistance, and being able to make the govt website more helpful/discoverable for support.
Though she definitely subscribes to her data being used for helpful purposes from bigtech
But...it would also greatly increase the damage any hacker could do.
Same applies to Google. It’s super convenient to have everything “on Google”. Until the day Google is exposed/hacked/turns evil. Then it’s a disaster.
Hoping the above won’t happen is not a strategy but a gamble.
You mean this hasn't already happened?
At least Netflix asks you every few hours if you’re still alive. YouTube will happily play you videos forever.
And they’re only a sliver of the company.
That's actually not true, at least in playlists. I regularly get the "Are you still watching" or whatever it is for YouTube when I put on music playlists.
Life's a gamble. Crossing the road on your way to work is gamble. Heck it's a gamble that you won't be taken out in the next 12 months by an insidious disease.
The bet I have placed personally is that Google is better at looking after my personal data that I am - so for example I use gmail instead of my own email server.
I think you'll find a lot of smart tech people do, but don't post on HN because it disagrees with the prevalent view so you just get downvoted, or called an astroturfer.
Apple is a hardware company. They don’t want your data and store it begrudgingly because to them it’s nothing but liability. Whenever they can, they will encrypt your data in a way they can’t access in order to not be liable. Their devices are the product, not you.
Based on the above, which company would you trust more?
Every company uses my data for analytic purposes. Ads that I do see in google play are almost same as I see in apple store. Both take my data and try to serve me the best. In fact, I don't think it's necessary evil but what bothers me is pretending that one company save my data better or make me believe they don't analyse my data.
Everybody does it, who says it does not analyse your data, he is lying.
You know apple has news-advertising and searchads that is based on iAds[1] ? Trust me, they need your data to work properly!
Look it all comes down to trust and I see way fewer reasons to trust Google than Apple. Both deserve a baseline measure of mistrust, but Google has all the incentive to spy on you while Apple has little to none. And when it comes to investigations of “why do you have this data in the first place?” Google’s answer is “we need it to advertise” while Apple’s can only be “we need it for this specific service” and if they fail to show why, they are liable. Google and Facebook have a virtually identical business model: collect, aggregate, advertise. If you don’t trust Facebook, why would you trust Google?
No idea what LEA stands for but apple did not encrypt after FBI complain: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
> dropped plans to let iPhone users fully encrypt backups of their devices in the company's iCloud service after the FBI complained that the move would harm investigations
If you are referring to FBI-Apple dispute, if apple is complying with Chinese government, it will comply with USA government. That is how things are.
I'm not defending google, far away from it. They are not much better but they protect user data exactly because apple make fun of them. They now do extreme measures just to protect the privacy so they will not destroy their reputation even more.
Apple is attempting to steal the concept of computing and turn it into a protected, arcane art.
You can't even run your own software on a device you own. That's a sure sign of a company that loves you and has your best interests at heart.
Apple is just as cutthroat as any. They only want your money.
They are both cutthroat but Apple specifically has taken a stance on privacy.
Apple makes 2 billion a year on advertising projected to go up to 11 billion in 5 years. While a fraction of total rev, I don’t think it’s correct to round off 2 billion and say they are somehow not an advertising company as well. (You don’t have to be just 1 type of company)
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.
However, I sincerely doubt Fitbit would have been worth anywhere near as much under those conditions.
Do they sell their company out and get rich, or do they stick to their principles and safeguard their users data?
I don't have the right answer. What I do know is when you're facing down a multi-million dollar payout, principles tend to get tossed out the window.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Though, I’m one person, so that doesn’t invalidate your point.
As one data point I just spent $1300 on a new top end Garmin watch and use it with Android.
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.
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.
Swipe right from workout screen.
(Finger moves right to left... not sure if that is swipe right or left :)
Other than that, it's a pretty nice device. Unfortunately it requires a subscription to get the most out of it.
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...