Not sure it makes sense to compare this to the Apple Watch. Fitbit is an exercise tracker that does simple notifications. Apple Watch is a smart watch that will also do exercise and health tracking.
People who use Fitbit LOVE Fitbit. The Fitbit Force, which was recalled because people were having adverse skin reactions to the nickel plated underside, was a great device that was poised to also offer simple notifications. It looks like they have moved that concept into the Charge devices.
For many, these devices will be the best of both worlds. A lot of people are in the Fitbit ecosystem, which allows you to share your tracking data with third party websites as well as food trackers etc. The simple notifications become just an added bonus.
I don't think this is the beginning of the end for Fitbit because I don't think someone looking at the Apple Watch is necessarily looking for the Fitbit. Personally, I have found Fitbit's products to be pretty reliable, comfortable, and subtle enough that they don't get in the way. The Surge doesn't look very subtle but it is thinner and narrower off the wrist than any Apple or Wear offerings.
The person who buys a Fitbit is just trying to track their activity but essentially, their daily steps and caloric burn. It's main use is as a weight loss and maintenance aid. The GPS would move it toward a more all purpose activity tracker. The notifications are just because it can, being connected to your phone via bluetooth.
I would Image the surge will be at least $200. The Force has a small LED and was $129. you're probably looking around $160 for the Charge, slightly more for the HR, and $200+ for the Surge.
Not for everyone. But then, neither is the Apple Watch or Wear.
I love my Fitbit Force and I look forward to the next Fitbit device. With that said, I was really hoping to ditch both my Fitbit and iPhone for my runs, but looks like that won't be happening yet.
First, when I heard rumblings of an Apple Watch there were only 2 things from the that I needed so I could ditch my iPhone. The first was the ability to store music and play via my Jaybird headphones. From all indications, this is the case with the Apple Watch. The second thing was built in GPS. Since Apple is not integrating that feature in the 1st generation Apple Watch, I may sit this release out and hope they integrate it with Apple Watch "GPS". The last thing I want is to wear a watch and take my iPhone 6 on a 15 mile run.
With the Fitbit, I would definitely go for it if you could store music and have GPS. Looks like they have the GPS integrated, but not all the other features, i.e. color touch screen and music storage plus 3rd party apps like Nike Run GPS.
I just want both the Fitbit Surge and Apple Watch together as one, but with an Apple logo slapped on it. I would be the first in line for that device!
Curious - I tend to kill off all my apps and use MapMyRide to track my workout and use the Music app to listen to music. I used to use Spotify to stream, but found that killed off the battery faster (sometimes I do use Spotify, but only to listen to a playlist that has been downloaded). Two-to-three hours and I'm down to 20%.
in iOS you don't need to obsessively "close" all your apps from the app switcher. those are recently-used apps, and most of them are in a suspended state after a few minutes. only apps w/ certain processes running (music, gps, etc) continue to do anything when you leave them.
in iOS you don't need to obsessively "close" all your apps from the app switcher. those are recently-used apps, and most of them are in a suspended state after a few minutes. only apps w/ certain processes running (music, gps, etc) continue to do anything when you leave them.
Oh I realize that, but not knowing for sure which apps might be misbehaving and causing extra battery drain, I just got in the habit of killing them all before going out on a run.
They are trying to compete against Apple head on...Good luck
I had someone online claim they couldn't run with the iPhone because they were in an urban area where they would be attacked and have it stolen. I guess I understand that, but I think that also means they have bigger problems than running without a phone.
Only way fitbit can be successful is by not competing. People can buy multiple devices for specific things, but the value has to be apparent. If fitbit can make this thingy that is perceived as valuable for cheap, they might sell a few. Apple is going to sell millions of Apple Watches - a far more capable device. And once you have one of those, I'm not sure how much separate value a fitbit is. Dunno; other than I have no interest in a fitbit, but will be getting 2x Apple Watches on launch day.
Garmins get 6 weeks in watch mode, 10 hrs in GPS training mode. We don't even know what the battery life of the Apple watch yet. Surely they could allow users to turn off GPS in the settings, when not required to preserve battery life.
Well, I can almost guarantee it won't be A-GPS which gives iPhones such quick geolocating. It'll be the low energy (but extremely slow) GPS that hikers and boaters use. They usually take 30 seconds or so to lock location.
I go to the gym 4 - 5 times a week and frankly, it's downright embarrassing to see how many folks at the gym are literally connected to the hip with their phones or with full-blown iPads. They will do one set of weights, take a 20-minute "break" without ever leaving their workout bench, do another set in 30 seconds, rinse and repeat. It's like they don't even take a moment to think that other people might be waiting to use that same equipment.
I don't bring any gadget into the workout room. It's distracting to me. I can "maybe" understand taking it on a treadmill for 30-minutes, especially since one can stream whatever music/video they want... but when using it in the weight room? Come-on.
It irks the hell out of me when I see people so sucked-into their gadgets, that they tune out everything else around them to such a degree that it's really a shame to see. They threw manners and courtesy out the door.
You know who you are... turn the damn things off, get your workout done, and move on... and don't give me a BS about how "important" that you just can't miss that one emergency phone call from a client or family member. That has nothing to do when I see you engorged in Facebook during your 20-minute "rest" between sets.
Well there are other uses. My wife, who is in her 60's, does an hour every day seven days a week at our gym on the step machine and the walking machine. She reads novels from her iPad but doesn't answer mail of calls. She hasn't gotten to the weight room yet though ...
They are trying to compete against Apple head on...Good luck
Not really, I think they are more likely trying to differentiate their product from all those competitors in the health tracking device market that will be using the HealthKit API, who may well have nothing other than price to create uniqueness, since they use the same API. Then again, they may be positioning themselves to be bought out by a Big Data Apple rival like Google or hardware contender like Samsung.
It will stlll come down to their software, hardware and marketing "Chops" to determine who comes out ahead in the race to come.
They are trying to compete against Apple head on...Good luck
Heck yeah! Cycling is easy to do with your phone - it just goes in the jersey's back pocket. If you're a serious runner, though, carrying a phone is a major hassle. I'm with the other poster who will wait for GPS on the Apple Watch. Would love GPS tracking and wireless music listening. Love my Garmin Forerunner, but Apple has the ability to blow them away with features. Serious athletes want accurate speed and distance tracking at the very least and you can't get that without GPS. The Fitbit is way off in distance accuracy in current models. Will be interesting to see how well their GPS works. Took Garmin a few years to get it right.
Well, I can almost guarantee it won't be A-GPS which gives iPhones such quick geolocating. It'll be the low energy (but extremely slow) GPS that hikers and boaters use. They usually take 30 seconds or so to lock location.
Obviously it won't be A-GPS, since that would require cellular radios in the watch. But that's not really relevant to this kind of device since lock time is relatively unimportant for tracking applications provided that it is sub-minute or so.
Let me add to your prediction. In 18 months they'll finally support HealthKit but it will be too late. Won't matter though, they will still cry Apple put them out of business.
I still can't believe the (arguably) leading manufacture of health tracking devices won't open up to HealthKit. Their only option for them to stay relevant at this point is to share data with HealthKit. Fitbit has the ability to build select devices at a price Apple doesn't care to compete in.
Comments
Not sure it makes sense to compare this to the Apple Watch. Fitbit is an exercise tracker that does simple notifications. Apple Watch is a smart watch that will also do exercise and health tracking.
People who use Fitbit LOVE Fitbit. The Fitbit Force, which was recalled because people were having adverse skin reactions to the nickel plated underside, was a great device that was poised to also offer simple notifications. It looks like they have moved that concept into the Charge devices.
For many, these devices will be the best of both worlds. A lot of people are in the Fitbit ecosystem, which allows you to share your tracking data with third party websites as well as food trackers etc. The simple notifications become just an added bonus.
I don't think this is the beginning of the end for Fitbit because I don't think someone looking at the Apple Watch is necessarily looking for the Fitbit. Personally, I have found Fitbit's products to be pretty reliable, comfortable, and subtle enough that they don't get in the way. The Surge doesn't look very subtle but it is thinner and narrower off the wrist than any Apple or Wear offerings.
The person who buys a Fitbit is just trying to track their activity but essentially, their daily steps and caloric burn. It's main use is as a weight loss and maintenance aid. The GPS would move it toward a more all purpose activity tracker. The notifications are just because it can, being connected to your phone via bluetooth.
I would Image the surge will be at least $200. The Force has a small LED and was $129. you're probably looking around $160 for the Charge, slightly more for the HR, and $200+ for the Surge.
Not for everyone. But then, neither is the Apple Watch or Wear.
Sorry Apple and other smart watch sellers.
My $40 watch which shows daily distance walked is all the basic watch I need. No frequent charging needed.
If I get lost, my iPhone is in my pocket.
For golf I have a Garmin specialized Golf GPS watch; daily charging needed for Golf GPS use.
I'm sure some do but I am guessing they carry change for the pay phones instead ...
First, when I heard rumblings of an Apple Watch there were only 2 things from the that I needed so I could ditch my iPhone. The first was the ability to store music and play via my Jaybird headphones. From all indications, this is the case with the Apple Watch. The second thing was built in GPS. Since Apple is not integrating that feature in the 1st generation Apple Watch, I may sit this release out and hope they integrate it with Apple Watch "GPS". The last thing I want is to wear a watch and take my iPhone 6 on a 15 mile run.
With the Fitbit, I would definitely go for it if you could store music and have GPS. Looks like they have the GPS integrated, but not all the other features, i.e. color touch screen and music storage plus 3rd party apps like Nike Run GPS.
I just want both the Fitbit Surge and Apple Watch together as one, but with an Apple logo slapped on it. I would be the first in line for that device!
Garmin with their Forerunner series have had heart rate and GPS in their watches for years.
Why the Apple Watch doesn't have GPS built-in probably has more to do with forcing you to buy an accompanying iPhone, than any technological problems.
completely wrong. go lookup the batter life of the garmin watch when in gps mode.
Curious - I tend to kill off all my apps and use MapMyRide to track my workout and use the Music app to listen to music. I used to use Spotify to stream, but found that killed off the battery faster (sometimes I do use Spotify, but only to listen to a playlist that has been downloaded). Two-to-three hours and I'm down to 20%.
in iOS you don't need to obsessively "close" all your apps from the app switcher. those are recently-used apps, and most of them are in a suspended state after a few minutes. only apps w/ certain processes running (music, gps, etc) continue to do anything when you leave them.
It's a better looking watch too.
said the troll. to anybody who would listen. because his ego demands it. because he's sad inside.
in iOS you don't need to obsessively "close" all your apps from the app switcher. those are recently-used apps, and most of them are in a suspended state after a few minutes. only apps w/ certain processes running (music, gps, etc) continue to do anything when you leave them.
Oh I realize that, but not knowing for sure which apps might be misbehaving and causing extra battery drain, I just got in the habit of killing them all before going out on a run.
Do people actually run/bike without their phone?
RIP Fitbit
RIP
They are trying to compete against Apple head on...Good luck
I had someone online claim they couldn't run with the iPhone because they were in an urban area where they would be attacked and have it stolen. I guess I understand that, but I think that also means they have bigger problems than running without a phone.
Only way fitbit can be successful is by not competing. People can buy multiple devices for specific things, but the value has to be apparent. If fitbit can make this thingy that is perceived as valuable for cheap, they might sell a few. Apple is going to sell millions of Apple Watches - a far more capable device. And once you have one of those, I'm not sure how much separate value a fitbit is. Dunno; other than I have no interest in a fitbit, but will be getting 2x Apple Watches on launch day.
We don't even know what the battery life of the Apple watch yet. Surely they could allow users to turn off GPS in the settings, when not required to preserve battery life.
So are people going to need a data plan for a watch now?
Why do you think they will need a data plan?
All it needs to do is store the GPS data in a .gpx file. Then you can sync it to your phone or computer to view the PGS track/data.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pavlok-the-habit-forming-device-that-shocks-you/8706576
Well there are other uses. My wife, who is in her 60's, does an hour every day seven days a week at our gym on the step machine and the walking machine. She reads novels from her iPad but doesn't answer mail of calls. She hasn't gotten to the weight room yet though ...
Hint: Block list
Do people actually run/bike without their phone?
RIP Fitbit
RIP
They are trying to compete against Apple head on...Good luck
Not really, I think they are more likely trying to differentiate their product from all those competitors in the health tracking device market that will be using the HealthKit API, who may well have nothing other than price to create uniqueness, since they use the same API. Then again, they may be positioning themselves to be bought out by a Big Data Apple rival like Google or hardware contender like Samsung.
It will stlll come down to their software, hardware and marketing "Chops" to determine who comes out ahead in the race to come.
Hurry 2015...
Heck yeah! Cycling is easy to do with your phone - it just goes in the jersey's back pocket. If you're a serious runner, though, carrying a phone is a major hassle. I'm with the other poster who will wait for GPS on the Apple Watch. Would love GPS tracking and wireless music listening. Love my Garmin Forerunner, but Apple has the ability to blow them away with features. Serious athletes want accurate speed and distance tracking at the very least and you can't get that without GPS. The Fitbit is way off in distance accuracy in current models. Will be interesting to see how well their GPS works. Took Garmin a few years to get it right.
Obviously it won't be A-GPS, since that would require cellular radios in the watch. But that's not really relevant to this kind of device since lock time is relatively unimportant for tracking applications provided that it is sub-minute or so.
Fitbit will be out of business within 2 years.
Let me add to your prediction. In 18 months they'll finally support HealthKit but it will be too late. Won't matter though, they will still cry Apple put them out of business.
I still can't believe the (arguably) leading manufacture of health tracking devices won't open up to HealthKit. Their only option for them to stay relevant at this point is to share data with HealthKit. Fitbit has the ability to build select devices at a price Apple doesn't care to compete in.