Reality is that many such services inevitably go under, and then your device is useless. Especially when the service is as compute intensive as this one sounds.
Looks like you have to pay separately for each individual use case as well!
Hard to see how they will compete with the inevitable clones, unless they get really lucky with patents. The nickel-and-dime scheme is not only consumer unfriendly, but probably a strategic mistake.
I joined the work on reverse engineering Fitbit's protocol but the encryption isn't hacked yet.
In the past we used cloud features for offline tracking in AR applications because an iPhone 3GS wasn't capable of real time pose reconstruction. But today it seems more like a lock-in and a way to collect data. A quad-core cpu on a phone should do most tasks offline.
I would argue your point is moot. How old is the average, working smartphone? When did you replace your desktop, your flat screen?
I would argue that you're comparing apples to oranges here. Say Fitbit (of which I'm a user) came out with a new improved version that's more accurate, lasts longer between charges and tracks more aspects of my health. Would I replace it - yes.
When the device is part of a service, when you look holistically at the product as a service then I believe concepts such as 'date of expiry for hardware', 'it could end up as a useless piece of electronics.' are moot.
When you upgrade to the lasted version of an installed software application, and the previous .exe can't read the new file format is it 'a useless piece of software?'. Technically yes, so what is different here?
I think the reason for this is that the intermediate results are likely quite bad.
>Dear backers, Some of you have asked about access to the raw spectrum and some subscription fees related questions. We take your comments very seriously and are now processing that internally. Please stay tuned for our upcoming updates. Thank you for supporting our project! The ConsumerPhysics Team
I take that, along with the pitch page to indicate that they weren't intending to initially, at least.
That they may treat the sensor fingerprints as a Trade Secret of some sort makes sense, considering the current cost and value of such data.