Google buying FitBit for $2.1 billion to advance fight against Apple Watch

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 52
    sdw2001 said:
    Another product/platform that Google will ruin.  It's done a great job taking the best video site ever created and turning it into an advertisement and voter manipulation machine.  
    I think YouTube is fantastic and use it throughout the day, every day. But then again, I pay $15 per month to remove all ads. Otherwise I would not use it at all.
  • Reply 22 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,393member
    dewme said:
    gatorguy said:
    dewme said:
    This makes sense for Google in terms of customer data acquisition, analytics, and targeted advertising/marketing. With just a little snooping from the onboard sensors Google will be able to push highly targeted ads to your wrist for a plethora of products including heart medications, sleep aids, sun screen, fitness equipment, blood pressure medications, gym memberships, etc. If Google could figure out a way to push advertising into your dreams they would have already done it. 
    "We (Google) prohibit advertisers from selecting an audience based on sensitive information, such as health information or religious beliefs."
    That's funny. 
    Yet true. Who knew?
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 23 of 52
    AB101AB101 Posts: 27member
    So much for FitBit.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 52
    They are planing to rename FitBit to MotoBit, So they have a combination of both of their failures.
    watto_cobrajbdragon
  • Reply 25 of 52
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    dewme said:
    lkrupp said:
    And none of this will trigger charges of anti-trust or  lack of customer choice. Imagine, though, the gnashing of teeth if Apple had tried to buy FitBit.
    If Apple had bought FitBit they would be buying market share in a market they already dominate, which would definitely raise some eyebrows. FitBit selling out to Google simply changes ownership of the company.

    But yeah, on a macro scale the absolute dominance of so many markets by a relatively small handful of companies is something to keep an eye on. For Google the FitBit acquisition is probably a move to gain additional touch points for the proliferation of their core business, i.e., advertising, than it is a desire to get into the wearables market to serve a broader range of customer needs. It's really more about addition another layer of telemetry and instrumentation to their product line: which Google publicly identifies with the "customer" moniker, but whom are in fact more accurately defined as "Ad Sinks," the components needed to complete the circuit for the "Ad Sources" who are Google's real customers. Yeah, "customer" sounds much nicer than "ad sink" but with Google they are one and the same.
    I think @lkrupp is right here.   Apple announced intentions to acquire Shazam and the deity that are EU Regulators had to approve.  I like Shazam as much as anyone but if they went under Soundhound is an icon away.   I think people love to scrutinize Apple's acquisitions a bit more than other companies.  
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 52
    wood1208 said:
    If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
    From Google "I think the Motorola transaction has been a success for us. Financially, we bought the asset for $12.5 billion. It had $3 billion in cash; we were able to sell the Home division for $2.5 billion; we ended selling the handset division for $3 billion. There were some other tax assets as well. When you work through the math, you realize we spent between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion for the patent assets." the numbers appear to make sense - Google bought Motorola strictly for the patents and when compared to the Nortel patent auction they didn't really over pay, they actually got a deal. Additionally, with Lenovo taking over the handsets Google still benefits off the production of Android devices without the headache of production (only left to focus on the Pixel which admitted the 4 is actually pretty much garbage even by Android user standards). I would've rather Apple bought Fitbit for the platform - Apple's hardware + Fitbit's fitness platform would've decimated the wearable market.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 52
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,487member
    BxBorn said:
    I would've rather Apple bought Fitbit for the platform - Apple's hardware + Fitbit's fitness platform would've decimated the wearable market.
    Apple could likely build their own fitness platform for less than $2.1 billion + the cost of integrating Fitbit's platform with their own.  If it's one thing Apple has, it's engineering chops.  But I think Apple is leaving fitness to 3rd parties for the most part now and focusing on the health aspects of Apple Watch, which is a much larger market.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 52
    nceencee Posts: 857member
    I wonder if this may make Apple consider adding Android connectivity to the iWatch. If they did, and it worked as well, Google would be able to write off a 2.1 Billion dollar purchase on its taxes and help Apple by eliminating some of the competition. Now competition is good, it keeps everyone honest and generally helps to bring about innovation so maybe this will be a good thing?

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 52
    gatorguy said:
    wood1208 said:
    If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
    You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.

    Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.

    It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years. 
    Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.

    Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.

    Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?

    That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.

    If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.


    edited November 2019 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 52
    Adios, Fitbit.
    razorpitlostkiwiwatto_cobrajbdragon
  • Reply 31 of 52
    Thats good for consumers, go for it google. Alphabet are good in buying to counter Apple, just like Motorola?  Este sorry they sold that one ha. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 52
    bigtdsbigtds Posts: 167member
    ajl said:
    The only way Google's got to fight back Apple is to buy (relative) successful companies, a move that demonstrates how Google is not capable of doing successful things by its own way.
    LOL...Do you think Apple didn't buy any other companies to enhance/contribute to it's product portfolio?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 33 of 52
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,685member
    gatorguy said:
    What is going to happen with the years upon years of customer data Fitbit has? 
    It doesn't look like much if anything will really change on that front other than the name on the header and the security of the data itself which should be stouter. Read both privacy policies.
    https://www.fitbit.com/legal/privacy-policy
    https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US



    Always the optimist, eh gatorguy:)

    We all know that this acquisition will result in Firbit users' data being sucked into Google's privacy killing maw and will be used for targeting ads, including health related ads. Initially, it will be labeled as "inadvertent", then, they'll argue it isn't being used in a way prohibited by the privacy poilcy and that it's been anonymized, and, finally, they'll just change the privacy policies to say, "All your datum are belong to us."

    Anyone who believes this won't happen, that "your data is safe" with Google is turning a blind eye to reality.
    edited November 2019 SpamSandwichGG1lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,393member
    gatorguy said:
    wood1208 said:
    If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
    You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.

    Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.

    It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years. 
    Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.

    Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.

    Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?

    That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.

    If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.


    You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch".  They have more defined plans in the health field. 
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 35 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,393member
    Google will “be transparent” about the data they collect and why that data is collected. Google will not sell personal data to anyone and Fitbit health and wellness data will not be used for Google ads either. Fitbit users will also be given the choice to review, move, or delete their data.
    Folio said:
    Compared to what google pays in TAC each year, this one time $2B charge is a blip. I suppose it might be strategic attempt to spur defections from Android and might mesh w Google's existing health research. Any thoughts @gatorguy?
    I've made a couple of posts in this thread opining that's exactly what Google has in mind: A health-related device. There's no "Apple Watch Killer" planned IMO.

    Edit: Fitbit's CEO commented this morning  "With Google’s resources and global platform, Fitbit will be able to accelerate innovation in the wearables category, scale faster, and make health even more accessible to everyone. I could not be more excited for what lies ahead."

    ...while Google clarified privacy, health and ads:
    (We will) “be transparent” about the data we collect and why that data is collected. Google will not sell personal data to anyone and Fitbit health and wellness data will not be used for Google ads either. Fitbit users will also be given the choice to review, move, or delete their data.


    edited November 2019
  • Reply 36 of 52
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,685member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    wood1208 said:
    If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
    You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.

    Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.

    It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years. 
    Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.

    Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.

    Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?

    That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.

    If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.


    You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch".  They have more defined plans in the health field. 
    Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,393member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    wood1208 said:
    If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
    You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.

    Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.

    It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years. 
    Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.

    Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.

    Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?

    That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.

    If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.


    You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch".  They have more defined plans in the health field. 
    Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
    Anyone can make stuff up. ;) That's the easy part. Now try the harder part...
    Where did you see Google offers health data as an ad segment companies can target for ads, for example someone like Apple could use for marketing their Apple Watch heart-health feature to? When you find it let me know. 

    I don't think you have any idea where the ads Google places for companies actually originate or how the target audience is determined. You should read up on it. 
    edited November 2019
  • Reply 38 of 52
    auxio said:
    BxBorn said:
    I would've rather Apple bought Fitbit for the platform - Apple's hardware + Fitbit's fitness platform would've decimated the wearable market.
    Apple could likely build their own fitness platform for less than $2.1 billion + the cost of integrating Fitbit's platform with their own.  If it's one thing Apple has, it's engineering chops.  But I think Apple is leaving fitness to 3rd parties for the most part now and focusing on the health aspects of Apple Watch, which is a much larger market.
    The purchase and cost of integration would've outweighed the cost of building from scratch and would've allowed engineers to focus more on the health aspects. A Fitbit acquisition would've given them an end-to-end "hear is where your overall health was, here's a detailed report of the exercise regimen you implemented and here is your health today as a result. Providing the people the option to sync the exercise data with their health records to provide the information back to doctors would've been a huge win. I love the fact that I can sync my Peloton workouts with Apple Health but wish the output of all the data was as comprehensive as what Fitbit produced in its platform. Using a 3rd party can bring over the Fitbit data but then I'm left wearing both an Apple watch and Fitbit....
  • Reply 39 of 52
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,685member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    wood1208 said:
    If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
    You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.

    Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.

    It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years. 
    Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.

    Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.

    Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?

    That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.

    If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.


    You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch".  They have more defined plans in the health field. 
    Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
    Anyone can make stuff up. ;) That's the easy part. Now try the harder part...
    Where did you see Google offers health data as an ad segment companies can target for ads, for example someone like Apple could use for marketing their Apple Watch heart-health feature to? When you find it let me know. 

    I don't think you have any idea where the ads Google places for companies actually originate or how the target audience is determined. You should read up on it. 
    Oh, gatorguy, whataboutism is the last resort when one doesn't have even a pretense of an argument left to defend the indefensible. What about Apple? Well, the article is about Google acquiring Fitbit, it's not about Apple. Why are you dragging Apple into the discussion? If we assume, for the sake of argument only, of course, that, "Apple does the same thing with your health data," are you saying that would excuse Google? Do your arguments really depend on moral relativism and the idea that, "If everyone does it, it can't be bad?"

    If not, exactly what is your point and what does Apple have to do with it? 

    Fitbit users are the losers in this transaction, just like Nest users before them. What other companies could do is neither here nor there. What we all know Google will do -- trample users' privacy -- is the only thing relevant to this discussion. 

    AppleExposedlostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 52
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,393member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    wood1208 said:
    If past is any indication! "Google is selling Motorola, the iconic handset maker it bought for $12.5 billion in May of 2012, to Chinese PC maker Lenovo for $2.91 billion". Fitbit should have merged with Garmin's wearables division.
    You might be on the money when all the dust settles. Or maybe not. I'd give it 12 months to see where this is going.

    Google bought "something" from Fossil several months back, will now own stuff from Pebble and Fitstar and Twine along with Fitbit IP. I doubt they're trying to create an Apple Watch competitor (why would they? Apple owns the segment)) but have signaled an interest in health-related wearables so perhaps that's what purpose Fitbit fills.

    It's been hardly mentioned that Google's ATAP created a health-monitor "band" briefly revealed in Milan last year following a health related "watch" a fee years earlier. It's not a new interest. Google even has Apple's own Chairman of the Board leading one of it's health-specific companies. Overall health, disease treatment and prevention, even research into extending human life well beyond 120 years have all been a major focus of Google (alphabet) for a number of years. 
    Apples owns the segment for iPhone owners, There are still a massive Android market of premium android phones who dont have a watch.

    Google sees the accompanying Apple watch with the phone as a big plus in the eyes of the consumer so they need to create their own Android/Google watch to compete.

    Competition is a good thing, it allows the platform to improve. Remember the old days of Apple where you couldn't open more than one application at a time and you couldn't copy paste text from one app to the other?

    That's what happens when there is no competition and no incentive to improve usability for the end users.

    If/when Google creates a watch that has a 1 week battery life without sacrificing functionality too much. Apple will take note and cut down the battery consumption or expand the battery on it.


    You could be right but I personally doubt that creating an Apple Watch competitor has much if anything to do with it. I feel as tho Google's intent is more targeted than a general use "smartwatch". That doesn't mean I'm right, but looking at various moves they're made in the health and wearable segments in the past few years I don't think Google themselves has any intent on making their own Apple-copycat "Google Watch".  They have more defined plans in the health field. 
    Of course, they want everyone's health data to use for targeted advertising. There's nothing mysterious here. Google has made an acquisition that supports its core business. As the more recent article points out, it'll go down just like Nest: promises of privacy and no data sharing, then, whoosh, your data is part of the machine.
    Anyone can make stuff up. ;) That's the easy part. Now try the harder part...
    Where did you see Google offers health data as an ad segment companies can target for ads, for example someone like Apple could use for marketing their Apple Watch heart-health feature to? When you find it let me know. 

    I don't think you have any idea where the ads Google places for companies actually originate or how the target audience is determined. You should read up on it. 
    Oh, gatorguy, whataboutism is the last resort when one doesn't have even a pretense of an argument left to defend the indefensible. What about Apple? Well, the article is about Google acquiring Fitbit, it's not about Apple. Why are you dragging Apple into the discussion? If we assume, for the sake of argument only, of course, that, "Apple does the same thing with your health data," are you saying that would excuse Google? Do your arguments really depend on moral relativism and the idea that, "If everyone does it, it can't be bad?"

    If not, exactly what is your point and what does Apple have to do with it? 

    Fitbit users are the losers in this transaction, just like Nest users before them. What other companies could do is neither here nor there. What we all know Google will do -- trample users' privacy -- is the only thing relevant to this discussion. 

    So you cannot find any evidence that Google allows advertisers to target health conditions as a category. See, wasn't that easy? I could have pointed you directly to the facts but then you wouldn't have performed the valuable exercise of verifying it for yourself. 

    Sadly you apparently still didn't consider it worth your time to understand how ads are crafted and then appear on Google's ad platform and thus you end up posting from ignorance.

    Google isn't choosing the categories that a company selects to target their company's ads to. When a company wants to place an ad, and Apple was an example of an advertiser who would use Google's ad platform, the advertiser is the one creating the ad and ultimately choosing what categories they wish to market products and/or services.
    But Google won't give them the option of targeting sensitive health-related categories even if the advertiser would like to.

    You should verify all that for yourself...
    Or simply continue posting from ignorance. Your choice. 
    edited November 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.