Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikestew | Hacker News Reader

I'd love to know the internal strategy, assuming there is any. Because my first question before allowing a FitBit acquisition would be, "how do I know you're not just going to soon abandon your new toy, as was done with WearOS?" I mean, Google had a serviceable OS, that they just seem to have given up on.

View on HN

Strangely, Samsung is toying with the idea of switching to WearOS in their new Galaxy 4 watch. I did buy a Galaxy 3, and even though I own a Galaxy phone, I did not like the experience and eventually returned the watch. I was optimistic about the possibility of a new OS on the 4th gen, until I looked into the current state of WearOS. I would like to imagine that google might use some of their newly acquired talent and IP to revamp WearOS in time for the launch of the Galaxy 4, but I am not holding my breath.

https://www.tomsguide.com/news/samsung-galaxy-watch-4-switch...

It seems to me like their goal with FitBit is data acquisition. They already have a massive amount of location and purchase information from millions if not billions of people around the planet from Android, Google Search, and YouTube. If they can get information on health status too, they can probably further improve their advertising system to improve ad relevancy. They can use that information to make targeted investments. Plus that data would be worth an incredible amount to insurers and three-letter security agencies.

Even if Google were to actually sell data (which they don‘t and never have. Selling targeting is way more profitable). They straight up legally couldn’t with health data because of regulation like HIPAA.

Google isn't a HIPAA covered entity in this context. The data gathered by consumer fitness trackers isn't legally considered protected health information under current federal regulation.

Oh. I wasn‘t aware. Good to know, thx. That seems like an oversight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com