[HN Gopher] Fitbit is doomed: Here's why everything Google buys ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Fitbit is doomed: Here's why everything Google buys turns to
       garbage (2019)
        
       Author : partingshots
       Score  : 79 points
       Date   : 2021-03-12 16:50 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.zdnet.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.zdnet.com)
        
       | nikolay wrote:
       | I've exited the Fitbit ecosystem since they started to charge to
       | charge for the data service and I've been happy with Withings =>
       | Nokia => Withings.
        
         | nojvek wrote:
         | I have no idea why Nokia sold Withings after acquiring it. I'm
         | glad Withings still exists. Such a great watch maker.
        
       | milesward wrote:
       | What a weird hit piece. The counterpoints are... legion. Youtube?
       | Doubleclick? Android?
        
         | ruined wrote:
         | youtube has perhaps an even bigger malinformation problem than
         | most social media. doubleclick was purely an anticompetitive
         | acquisition, and was never a net positive for the internet
         | anyway. and they are doing their best to wall in and destroy
         | all the things that made android a good choice over ios, while
         | falling behind in all the areas ios is advancing.
        
           | leetcrew wrote:
           | youtube certainly has its problems, but I wouldn't call it
           | garbage. just yesterday I came across this gem [0] that
           | really changed my perception of pop music (I'm one of those
           | people who ordinarily wouldn't listen to anything that plays
           | on the radio). I was taken aback by the level of effort,
           | knowledge, and production that went into it. content like
           | this simply did not exist fifteen years ago.
           | 
           | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-XSTSnqXxo
        
         | ppf wrote:
         | Android and Youtube are garbage.
        
         | taeric wrote:
         | I'm not sure that phrase fits with your examples. Google has
         | some products it has purchased that are doing well. But... Only
         | a small number compared to the things they have purchased that
         | they killed. Such that the legion is likely on the other side.
         | Now, they have some behemoths that they bought.
         | 
         | The general feeling I get, is if a product I have bought had
         | the parent company change hands, I can expect greatly
         | diminished support.
         | 
         | With Google, it is super frustrating. They seem to gas light
         | products/markets, and then just walk away when the initial
         | flare up doesn't immediately take off. I liken it to trying to
         | make a camp fire by just throwing kindling at the fire pit and
         | then not doing anything else.
        
           | canadianfella wrote:
           | Google has earned far more on the small number of successes
           | than lost on the large number of failures.
           | 
           | Edit: I know my comments aren't always great, bit can someone
           | please confirm that I'm not shadow banned?
        
         | red_trumpet wrote:
         | The article clearly distinguishes acquirations in the last 12
         | years, and before that.
        
       | iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote:
       | I opened the article expecting to agree with it, then I got to
       | the part about "does anyone use google flights instead of
       | _travelocity_ " and started to wonder if it was satire.
        
         | DavidAdams wrote:
         | I had the exact same thought: #1 I use Google Flights all the
         | time. Daily, sometimes. #2 Google Flights and Travelocity
         | aren't comparable in their utility.
        
         | Twixes wrote:
         | Flights is my fourth favorite Google product after Search,
         | Maps, and Translate. I used it all the time when travel was a
         | bit more feasible and I hope to make use of it a lot in the
         | future. As a traveler, it's powerful.
        
         | ar_lan wrote:
         | > does anyone use google flights instead of travelocity
         | 
         | Yes, absolutely. I don't even know what Travelocity is :)
         | 
         | What surprises me is that people still use Expedia.
         | 
         | Agreed, this is probably satire.
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | Why wouldn't people use Expedia? Honest question. I don't use
           | it a lot; I usually book air and hotel direct. I do use other
           | services as well on occasion but Expedia can be useful for
           | discovery if nothing else.
        
             | iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote:
             | All personal anecdotes but:
             | 
             | Flights - wierd fare classes that dont have the normal
             | options re changes and cancellation, no recourse through
             | the airline if there are any issues
             | 
             | Customer service - hours on hold, and you have to call them
             | to change anything, the hotel/ airline wants nothing to do
             | with you
             | 
             | Hotels- treated like a 3rd class citizen, no points, cant
             | use your status if you have it, worst room, I have been
             | charged extra "urban fees" at the hotel on these fares.
             | Hotels (business hotels anyway) dont want you to use
             | Expedia and treat you like shit if you do.
             | 
             | I expect they have a niche for infrequent, budget
             | sensitive, travelers as I have seen deals on there, but if
             | you travel regularly, or expect plans to change, stay away.
             | 
             | What I like about google flights is how minimally
             | commercial it is, it really looks just like its reporting
             | fares, not flashing promoted bundles of things in your
             | face.
        
               | nucleardog wrote:
               | I've had exactly one experience with Expedia. I'm firmly
               | in the "book directly" camp for all the reasons you
               | mention but my wife booked a hotel in Beijing with them.
               | 
               | We travel from where we are in China to Beijing, show up
               | to the hotel, and they have no idea who we are. They're
               | really apologetic but they show us the Expedia interface
               | they have that definitely doesn't have us on it, we
               | double-check our booking and make sure we're at the right
               | place, etc.
               | 
               | So we call Expedia. They're like "Oh so sorry, we'll have
               | to call the hotel. Please hold." They come back and say
               | no one answered. We're standing there with the front desk
               | staff in front of the phone and we all saw it very
               | obviously not ring. We confirm the number with the staff,
               | they say they'll try again. Still nothing. They hang up
               | on us.
               | 
               | We call the hotel's number from our own phone, it rings.
               | 
               | We call Expedia back and try again. They try calling the
               | hotel a few more times and finally tell us there's
               | nothing they can do. So I tell them to just cancel the
               | reservation then since it's obviously useless.
               | 
               | They tell us they'll have to escalate it to some other
               | department who will contact the hotel and determine
               | whether we're eligible to cancel without penalty due to
               | the short timeframe for the cancellation. I told them if
               | the charge hit my credit card I'd dispute it, but they're
               | welcome to do whatever they feel is necessary.
               | 
               | So in summary: Booked hotel. They did not put booking
               | through. They were unable to rectify the situation. They
               | told us they may choose to charge us anyway. It cost me
               | like $15 in international roaming charges.
        
               | randycupertino wrote:
               | > What I like about google flights is how minimally
               | commercial it is, it really looks just like its reporting
               | fares, not flashing promoted bundles of things in your
               | face.
               | 
               | Exactly! I use it because it is the craigslist of
               | flights. I don't want to be sold a zillion things, I want
               | to simply plug in the trips I'm considering and view the
               | best available options. Flights is great for that!
        
             | andi999 wrote:
             | Last time I used it, you get results shown which eventually
             | you can't buy, and I remember surprising surcharges (like
             | for paying with cc or so). Was so annoyed never used it
             | again.
        
               | ghaff wrote:
               | They can have some dark patterns but it seems to work
               | well enough for me when I use it.
        
           | pards wrote:
           | TD Bank in Canada require the use of Expedia to redeem travel
           | points on some of their credit cards. They run their own
           | version of it, too, under the sketchy "tdrewards.com" domain
           | (instead of the unspoofable rewards.td.com).
        
         | ballenf wrote:
         | In 2019, I'd argue that was true.
        
           | rtrdea wrote:
           | I've used Google flights since it was that other company they
           | bought
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | nharada wrote:
       | I'm not convinced on all of these examples. I don't actually know
       | but I suspect DeepMind has paid for itself by now.
        
       | whoisjuan wrote:
       | Ok so the article is garbage and the author loves to claim things
       | without data just for the sake of cementing his opinions.
       | 
       | Past that, I think it would be interesting to see how Google is
       | going to operate Fitbit moving forward. I personally never found
       | Fitbit attractive (as a product or company) and for the time it
       | was public neither did Wall Street.
       | 
       | I think companies like Fitbit and GoPro will always struggle to
       | create a defensible position in their market. On one side you
       | have Apple squeezing pressing with their cult-like brand and high
       | quality, taking all the upper-end of the market.
       | 
       | On the other side you have the Chinese brands leveraging thier
       | efficiency to create products that serve the lower-end of the
       | market. They compete on price but also have a lot of upper room
       | to apply their efficiencies and squeeze market out of the middle.
       | 
       | And who is the middle? A company like Fitbit that has to compete
       | on both ends while trying to avoid cannibalization.
       | 
       | I think Google's opportunity is to fold that wearable business
       | into their smartphone business and attempt to gain terrain with
       | very tight integrations that can't be used by their Chinese
       | competitors. I don't see any other way for them to win with this
       | acquisition.
        
       | mikestew wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | ortusdux wrote:
         | 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...
        
         | TheAdamAndChe wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | v7p1Qbt1im wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | nradov wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | v7p1Qbt1im wrote:
               | Oh. I wasn't aware. Good to know, thx. That seems like an
               | oversight.
        
       | esturk wrote:
       | [Meta]
       | 
       | I was wondering why a post from 2019 is appearing now. So I
       | checked out the submitters history. This dude seems to have a
       | hard on for Google's failures.
       | 
       | Said person has submitted "How Google will Collapse" no less than
       | 5 times.
        
         | arunc wrote:
         | Before anyone jumps on to trashing that person, may be the
         | person didn't realize it themselves and your comment would give
         | them a chance to realize it and remove the bias if any.
        
       | 015a wrote:
       | (2019)
       | 
       | Go buy a Fitbit today. Incredibly, against all odds according to
       | this article, you still can. They make new ones every 6 months.
       | They may not have the high-performance 60hz display tech of the
       | AW, but look past that and its a _better_ experience than AW (and
       | I use an iPhone; I still prefer Fitbit).
       | 
       | Week long battery life on all models. Truly continuous heart rate
       | monitoring (versus AW's "I'll take a reading maybe once every
       | five minutes unless you're working out"). Great range of devices,
       | from $50 trackers to $300 super-watches (ALL of which are still
       | cheaper than the $400 giga-watches that Apple physically cant not
       | make). Sleep tracking, without worrying about battery life?
       | 
       | Apple Watches are a jewelry phone companion. That's what they do,
       | and that has value, for some people. I've never seen that value.
       | My value is specifically in fitness; Fitbit is Just Better at
       | that.
        
         | nltrace wrote:
         | Why do people give their health data to Silicon Valley
         | corporations? I just don't get it.
         | 
         | Didn't people train before the advent of "smart" watches?
        
           | toomuchredbull wrote:
           | I actually have the opposite complaint. I would like my
           | doctor to have access to info from my Apple Watch. Certainly
           | I trained before a smart watch but I didn't necessarily know
           | how fast I was going, if my metrics (like v02 max) were
           | improving, how its affecting my heart, etc. Why would I care
           | if Tim Cook could theoretically look up my resting bpm?
        
             | mrkeen wrote:
             | Substitute 'Tim Cook' for 'law enforcement',
             | 'theoretically' for 'warrantless fishing expedition',
             | 'resting bpm' for 'location' & 'known associates' & 'search
             | terms' & 'browser history'.
        
             | moistbar wrote:
             | > Why would I care if Tim Cook could theoretically look up
             | my resting bpm?
             | 
             | Because a company can tie the timestamp of your BPM reading
             | to your activity on your phone/desktop/what have you and
             | judge your emotional response to whatever you're doing at
             | the time. Psychotic as this may sound, it opens the door
             | for a lot of particularly Orwellian mass surveillance under
             | the guise of targeted ads. They wouldn't be knowing just
             | what you do or buy, they'd know how you feel about it too.
        
             | angelbar wrote:
             | Insurance?.... Job seeking?....
        
           | anonuser123456 wrote:
           | I trust Apple over Epic. Hell, I trust Apple over my doctor.
        
           | nradov wrote:
           | Some of the largest players in the fitness tracker market
           | such as Garmin, Suunto, Samsung, and Coros are hardly
           | "Silicon Valley" companies. Sure it's possible to train
           | without a smart watch, but having one makes it much easier to
           | follow a structured training program, measure your progress,
           | and share data with coaches and friends.
           | 
           | Didn't people travel before the advent of the "wheel"?
        
       | vagrantJin wrote:
       | The price of success.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | nodesocket wrote:
       | We can add Nest to this list. My Nest stuff hasn't seen updates
       | in years.
        
       | cashsterling wrote:
       | I agree and mostly disagree with the article. Youtube was a good
       | buy. Google bought a sat-imaging company that was a good buy.
       | GSuite is good. Android and the Pixel are pretty okay. Google
       | Scholar is dope. There are a lot of things Google is doing well.
       | Google is full and smart people and they have done a lot of good
       | stuff.
       | 
       | They also have struck out a lot on new technology ventures as the
       | article mentions.
       | 
       | I like what Google is doing with their "X, moonshot factory" but
       | I think, again, there are examples of picking strange things to
       | sink a lot of money into (project Loon for instance).
       | 
       | But Google is hardly alone... MS, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. all have
       | their venture failures to counter-balance successes.
       | 
       | Overall I think Google is a well run company and generally knows
       | what they are doing on the balance.
       | 
       | Meanwhile,the article authors works at Zdnet... just saying.
        
       | ncmncm wrote:
       | I don't know the fate of Fitbit, although I can guess, but the
       | fate of Samsung's _anything_ connected with Tizen is pure DOOM.
       | 
       | Why does Tizen spell DOOM? It is a huge C system that traffics
       | exclusively in pointers to void. Yes: it is full of typedefs to
       | void*. Do you need to know anything else?
       | 
       | So, in whichever way Google flubs Fitbit, at least Samsung is out
       | of their way.
       | 
       | My question is, what has gone so very, very wrong at Samsung as
       | to have led them to pick up Tizen?
        
       | 1996 wrote:
       | Google is the new Yahoo: where acquired startups go to die.
        
       | willtemperley wrote:
       | Investing any time in a Google project is a risk, given their
       | track record. I think I'm most sad about Project Ara. That seemed
       | genuinely innovative and environmentally responsible. Axing
       | Hangouts means I'll probably have to use Skype/Zoom/<insert
       | malware here>. Working with Google on an academic project was
       | terrible. They failed to deliver promised features in Google
       | Earth Engine (i.e. the developers personally promised us).
       | Result: I'm blocked from coding and open sourcing the features
       | myself in another big data platform, and we have a completely
       | unreproducible study because we had to rely on a bunch of awful
       | hacks to get it to run.
       | 
       | https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25181
       | 
       | https://killedbygoogle.com
        
         | danaris wrote:
         | Hangouts is the one I'm most personally frustrated by, too, but
         | what I'd really love to see rise up to replace it is an open
         | _protocol_ with a reference implementation client that 's
         | similar to Discord (broadly, anyone can create a "server"
         | that's independent of actual physical servers, each server can
         | have more-or-less arbitrary channels, most importantly _both
         | text and voice /video_, supporting inlining of images and some
         | other nice modern QoL features that, say, IRC lacks). It
         | frustrates me no end that all our common "modern"
         | communications platforms belong entirely to one company or
         | another, and will only be allowed to exist as long as those
         | companies can continue leveraging them to maintain an income
         | (one way or another).
         | 
         | I've heard _some_ good things about Matrix[0], but I 'm even a
         | bit wary of any "open" protocol that's backed by a single for-
         | profit company. However, I don't know of anything out there
         | that's better right now.
         | 
         | The trouble, as always, is getting the people you want to
         | communicate with to agree to use it, too...
         | 
         | [0] https://matrix.org
        
           | willtemperley wrote:
           | Matrix is interesting, I'll have a look, thanks. Signal is
           | the only video call capable chat app I know of I would
           | genuinely trust.
           | 
           | Unfortunately the killer P2P protocol, BitTorrent, has been a
           | victim of its own success, I imagine it'd ge tricky to get a
           | BitTorrent protocol based video app into the Apple App Store,
           | for instance.
           | 
           | I suppose it's the App Store in question that defines the
           | limitations of a P2P video/chat app, I realise I don't have
           | enough knowledge of those limitations to comment further.
        
             | danaris wrote:
             | I'm not sure if BitTorrent is a reasonable solution to the
             | problem of P2P video _chatting_ , since the power of
             | BitTorrent is in having many nodes all sharing the same
             | content and able to send parts of it to a new node seeking
             | that content.
             | 
             | Realtime chat doesn't seem amenable to that type of
             | optimization.
             | 
             | In any case, I don't think the problem here is primarily in
             | the technologies being used; I wouldn't exactly call real-
             | time video chat a _solved_ problem (I 'm sure there's room
             | for plenty more optimizations in it over the next few
             | decades), but at least as I understand it, it's definitely
             | one for which there are plenty of available open-source
             | stacks available.
             | 
             | The problem is in a) designing a robust protocol/API that
             | can be implemented by many clients and servers (that
             | fulfills my basic requirements above of "basically Discord,
             | but not controlled by one company"), b) writing a solid
             | reference implementation of both the client and the server,
             | and c) (perhaps most importantly) getting other people to
             | adopt it so it's more than just Failed Competing Standard
             | #27.
        
               | willtemperley wrote:
               | Looks like BitTorrent tried it, with Bleep [0], but it
               | disappeared in 2015 leaving barely a trace. I agree with
               | all your points though.
               | 
               | [0] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-
               | bittorr...
        
       | ravenstine wrote:
       | It's certainly possible that Google would kill FitBit, but I have
       | a feeling they're looking far ahead and seeing the potential in
       | being the predominant biometrics company. Biometrics may be the
       | next frontier in how Silicon Valley will make money from our
       | data. Run of the mill internet data mining has been done to
       | death, but if Google can get everyone to wear devices that will
       | provide health data to potential buyers, that seems like a huge
       | win for them.
       | 
       | My suspicion as to why Google hasn't grabbed the accelerator on
       | FitBit just yet is they're waiting for other companies like Oura
       | to prematurely release their next "big thing" before they choose
       | to blow that competition out of the water. There's a lot more
       | that these companies could be doing with their fitness trackers,
       | and it's a matter of who does it first at a large enough volume.
        
         | danaris wrote:
         | > Biometrics may be the next frontier in how Silicon Valley
         | will make money from our data.
         | 
         | If that's the case, it's only likely to be so for a very few
         | years before we start seeing at least the more progressive
         | jurisdictions like California putting severe restrictions on
         | how that data can be used--not just "with consent", but "at
         | all", given how easy it is for them to tack any kind of "and we
         | get to sell all your data" clause into a user agreement.
        
       | rurban wrote:
       | It's certainly not the culture which kills many such aquisitions.
       | It's the management, its PM's. It's not a culture problem, it's a
       | structural problem. Culture is extremely good there.
        
       | trollied wrote:
       | Article is from 2019.
        
       | fallingknife wrote:
       | Here's why it doesn't matter that most things that Google buys
       | turn into Garbage: Android.
       | 
       | People just really can't get their heads around a high risk /
       | high reward investment strategy.
        
         | asah wrote:
         | ...and YouTube
        
           | asah wrote:
           | ...and Applied Semantics
           | 
           | https://digiday.com/media/today-in-history-google-buys-
           | appli...
        
           | easton_s wrote:
           | Firebase also survived and has thrived as a brand.
        
             | beagle3 wrote:
             | As did Waze.
             | 
             | Google maps, google docs and a few others were also bought,
             | but have been integrated and are not considered trash by
             | the majority of people - quite the opposite.
        
       | lgomezma wrote:
       | Well VirusTotal was acquired by Google and is thriving, so not
       | everything turns to garbage.
        
       | chanmad29 wrote:
       | To me, Google seems like a company completely run by engineers,
       | and perhaps these techies in their silos compete so much, that
       | they do want to "integrate" their stuff with broader teams. Like
       | say, Waze team does not want it's features integrated into GMaps.
       | How else is there so little order? A complete opposite of Apple
       | it seems.
        
         | Judgmentality wrote:
         | Google is very much a company run by PMs. It's just the PMs are
         | rewarded for launching products, and not maintaining them. In
         | other words, the larger the Google graveyard, the more bonuses
         | are being handed out. People are doing what they're being
         | incentivized to do.
         | 
         | Google's culture is fundamentally broken. I don't think it's
         | possible for them to fix this. I'll probably take a short
         | position on Google in the medium future.
        
           | CarelessExpert wrote:
           | Eh, I'd hold on that short position for now.
           | 
           | To me the real question is: what will come of these antitrust
           | investigations into their targeted ad business?
           | 
           | That's the cash cow upon which their stock price is
           | ultimately based. They've been able to get away with a _lot_
           | of failures because ultimately advertising is such a huge
           | business for them.
           | 
           | But if there's any move to break apart that business or
           | regulate it in a way to create more competition in the
           | market, to me that could be the thing that could start to
           | undermine their share price.
        
             | Judgmentality wrote:
             | I think a better question is how much of online advertising
             | is just straight-up bullshit?
             | 
             | https://freakonomics.com/podcast/advertising-part-2/
        
           | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
           | I wouldn't take a short position in a company based on the
           | frequent closure of trivial, money-losing sub-ventures,
           | especially if their main money-making businesses were healthy
           | and growing. It'd be like shorting Apple based on the poor
           | performance of the XServe business in 2009.
           | 
           | Also, it can be really expensive to hold on to a short
           | position for a long time so it might not be a good idea even
           | if there were more substantial reasons to take one.
        
             | stinkytaco wrote:
             | Especially when they have tons of counter examples:
             | Android, Youtube, Gmail, Docs, Drive (and all the
             | educational contracts those include), Cloud... I'd be
             | willing to bet that if I wanted to use the Internet and not
             | interact with Google I probably couldn't do it for long. At
             | the very least I'm willing to bet that some organization I
             | need to interact with is using Gmail for Business.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-03-12 23:03 UTC)