Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 784 posts

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#251

Post by jsjohnst »

_ea1k wrote: post #233
jsjohnst wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree Google Maps has improved, but I’m not convinced it was directly because of acquiring Waze. Waze UX has dropped so much since acquisition that its almost to the painful point. I also find it’s “user submitted” data (cops, construction, pot holes) has dropped a lot so I feel a lot of folks who were submitting quality data have either left or just stopped submitting as the UX has gotten so bad. Keyhole is anothe…

> I agree Google Maps has improved, but I’m not convinced it was directly because of acquiring Waze. They often include Waze reported events in Google Maps now. That was the part that I was referring to. I'm not sure if Google Maps reported issues feed back into Waze as well, but I would expect them to.

> They often include Waze reported events in Google Maps now.

I hadn’t seen that, so then yeah I agree it is improved.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#252

Post by lquist »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #22

Changes of control typically trigger a suite of investor and creditor protections. I'm beginning to favor a similar set of rights for consumers. Right to deletion would be one. Heightened portability requirements another.

An interesting idea but the reason investors + creditors can get these is because they have leverage and can negotiate for them. They are not always able to secure them. Consumers currently have no such leverage. The best avenue to this kind of leverage is probably legal?

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#253

Post by Amygaz »

ameister14 wrote: post #220
jchook wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% to 90% of Google’s revenue derives from collecting your personal information, and you think that buying a wristband that tracks the biometrics of 25 million people is “just for the sake of it”?

80-90% of Google's revenue derives from organizing your personal information and selling ad products derived from it. It's not a direct transfer of data into cash. I'm not sure people really need biometrics data to advertise to you more effectively.

Actually there is a ton of money in the health sector going digital. The more niche are virtual trials and compliance, but it represents 200 billions to pharma and government in the US alone. The more advertisement-related opportunities would be the one you can sell to drug stores and insurance companies. While Google maybe the king of ads, and would benefit from knowing what happens to you when you shop at target online vs in-store, Alphabet is involved in so many health, personalized, and direct-to-consummer related projects, that you don't even have to be creative to think about how they can use it.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#255

Post by MidnightRamen »

ameister14 wrote: post #220
jchook wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% to 90% of Google’s revenue derives from collecting your personal information, and you think that buying a wristband that tracks the biometrics of 25 million people is “just for the sake of it”?

80-90% of Google's revenue derives from organizing your personal information and selling ad products derived from it. It's not a direct transfer of data into cash. I'm not sure people really need biometrics data to advertise to you more effectively.

Fitness trackers provides tons of information, but probably the most valuable part of that information is that it's real time. It can tell google information about your routine even when you don't have your phone on you (wake up and leave your phone on the nightstand while you get around? Now Google knows you're not asleep.)

I haven't had a Fitbit in years, so I'm sure some have GPS, which would increase the footprint of GPS tracking for runners that don't run with their phone (even if that not many), then you're getting ads about healthy food options near the start/stop point of your trail.

It could tell Google if you've been having trouble sleeping, then you're getting sleep aid or sleep study or high end mattress ads. I'm sure the fitbit can detect certain workout routines based on physical movement, and can cater ads to users based on whether they're weight trainers or endurance trainers as well as skill level.

I think there is a ton of high value information that can be gathered from a Fitbit for Google.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#256

Post by Mc_Big_G »

kerng wrote: post #46

Vic Gundotra (VP Google) said back when Microsoft bought Nokia that "two turkeys don't make an eagle". Google officially has become the Microosft of the mid 2000s. Lack of direction and innovation, buying up companies just for the sake of it. Here is a link to Google's anology: https://www.techspot.com/news/42338-google-attacks-nokia-and...

They're obviously buying them for the data. It's the new gold.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#257

Post by mercutio2 »

MBCook wrote: post #168
chrisfinazzo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Apple does this too to some extent. However, given their most recent commercial re privacy and all of their public statements on the topic, I don't expect them to exploit it for profit quite so shamelessly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py0acqg1oKc

> they will now be supplied with a 24/7 live feed of your most sensitive health statistics. In Apple land all health data stays on device, not in the cloud like Google/FitBit

In Apple-land, health data is synced to the cloud, but encrypted such that Apple doesn’t hold the keys in escrow; they’re peer-to-peer synced between your devices.

Similar impact from a privacy perspective (assuming crypto is unbreakable), but the data certainly is synced.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#259

Post by undefined3840 »

I think all this talk about Facebook and paid political ads missing the key problem I have with ads-based businesses and that is there are certain things you just shouldn’t be able to target ads to people with, including health information.

If congress wanted to regulate big tech they should enforce certain basic standards around 1) what information can be used to target consumers with 2) the granularity of the data.

For political ads, for example, I think the right decision for Twitter and Facebook would be to allow them but limit targeting e.g. you can specify the district they would appear in (low granularity) but be shown to a completely random sample of users who live there.

Re: Google Buys Fitbit for $2.1B

#260

Post by naniid »

wufufufu wrote: post #24

The good news is Fitbit’s health data sucks so Googles not gaining that much.

Don't understand what you mean by "Fitbit's health data sucks". I find it accurate. My only grouse with them is that they don't give enough data out to be synced with Google fit or Apple health. Which might change now.
Post reply on HN