iPhone 4s Inspired Fitbit to Redesign Fitness Trackers With Bluetooth 4.0 Support in 2011

[MacRumors]

In a wider piece on Fitbit and its efforts to escape from the shadow of Apple, The New York Times shared an interesting anecdote about the way the iPhone 4s influenced the features in Fitbit's line of fitness trackers back when it debuted in 2011.

The iPhone 4s was the first iPhone to include support for Bluetooth 4.0 to allow accessories to connect to the device, and following the introduction of the new phone, Fitbit CEO James Park decided to re-engineer Fitbit products to support Bluetooth. It was a decision that set Fitbit's product releases back by six months.

When Phil Schiller introduced the iPhone 4S in 2011, for example, Mr. Park had a realization.

At the time, the new iPhone added a capability to synchronize with wireless accessories using the standard called Bluetooth. Fitbit trackers back then lacked Bluetooth connectivity, but Mr. Park wanted them to be able to synchronize data immediately with the iPhone.

"It could enable a lot of possibilities in terms of real-time feedback," he said.

Announced in 2012, the Fitbit One and the Fitbit Zip became the first Fitbit devices to support Bluetooth 4.0, syncing data like steps tracked, distance, floors climbed, calories expended, and sleep quality to iOS and Android phones. According to The New York Times, the two devices were highly successful.

Since then, Park says Fitbit has made an effort to stray away from Apple's approach to product design, focusing on simple devices to make wearables more approachable.

"We look at it from a consumer point of view," Mr. Park said. Apple Watch "is a computing platform, but that's really the wrong way to approach this category from the very beginning."

Fitbit's simplicity, and its lower price point, has allowed it to thrive even after the launch of the Apple Watch. Fitbit sold 21.4 million devices in 2015, earning $1.86 billion in revenue. While Apple doesn't break out sales of the Apple Watch, IDC and Strategy Analytics estimates put sales at approximately 11.4 million.

Going forward, Fitbit plans to add additional features to compete in the wearables market, but Park says the company is going to be "very careful" to avoid the feature overload mistake he sees being made with smart watches.

Article Link: iPhone 4s Inspired Fitbit to Redesign Fitness Trackers With Bluetooth 4.0 Support in 2011

 

[farewelwilliams]

"We look at it from a consumer point of view," Mr. Park said.

right, apple wasn't thinking of the consumers at all.

 

[v0lume4]

FitBit is absolutely killing it. I see FitBits everywhere, however I only semi-occasionally see an Apple Watch. Not that the two are in the same category necessarily. And man, for $130 for the Charge HR, the things are a steal.

 

[pgiguere1]

The iPhone 4S was introduced by Phil Schiller.

/pedanticalness

 

[jclo]

The iPhone 4S was introduced by Phil Schiller.

/pedanticalness

Amusing. NYT originally had it as Steve Jobs and then changed it to Tim Cook. I just watched the video of the event, looks like it was definitely Schiller. I fixed the quote on our end.

 

[longofest]

Bluetooth 4.0 has revolutionized the industry. It's an awesome technology.

 

[Mac 128]

"We look at it from a consumer point of view," Mr. Park said. Apple Watch "is a computing platform, but that's really the wrong way to approach this category from the very beginning."

This is exactly right. Whether one looks at it as a watch or a high tech "wearable", it's about how the individual will incorporate the device into their life, onto their person, and into their wardrobe. For all those who say a round watch will never happen because the UI is too difficult and too contrary to function, this is the reason right here.

 

[Studioman]

Since then, Park says Fitbit has made an effort to stray away from Apple's approach to product design, focusing on simple devices to make wearables more approachable.Fitbit's simplicity, and its lower price point, has allowed it to thrive even after the launch of the Apple Watch. Fitbit sold 21.4 million devices in 2015, earning $1.86 billion in revenue. While Apple doesn't break out sales of the Apple Watch, IDC and Strategy Analytics estimates put sales at approximately 11.4 million.

So Fitbit selling 21 million devices in after being on the market for 4 years with multiple products is impressive, but Apple selling over half as many in its first few months is a failure?

 

[Karma*Police]

The problem is, fitbits are the low end MP3 players of wearables... Gifted heavily because they're cheap, but ends up in drawers a few months later.

Even the CEO admitted that on a conference call when he cited the reason for launching a smart watch... User engagement was much higher with their more feature rich devices. It seems the NY Times overlooked this little but important fact when writing this article.

Without a platform, I don't think Fitbit has a very bright future.

 

[Crzyrio]

I refuse to buy Fitbit until they have Health Kit Integration.

I currently only have their Aria scale and luckily myfitnesspal syncs the weights from fitbit and puts it in health kit

 

[KUguardgrl13]

I like my Fitbit Flex, but it's affordable and not distracting. I'd love an Apple Watch, but I don't want to deal with my wrist lighting up with notifications all day.

 

[diegogaja]

Um...you DO realize you can control what notifications show up, right? Everything between all and none...

I like my Fitbit Flex, but it's affordable and not distracting. I'd love an Apple Watch, but I don't want to deal with my wrist lighting up with notifications all day.

 

[ikir]

Another killer feature? Health support... Fitbit wake up

 

[John.B]

right, apple wasn't thinking of the consumers at all.

The UI for the watchOS is easily the least consumer-friendly thing to come out of Apple in decades.

 

[QCassidy352]

We look at it from a consumer point of view," Mr. Park said. Apple Watch "is a computing platform, but that's really the wrong way to approach this category from the very beginning.

But that just begs the question: what is "this category"? Fitbit sees the category as fitness trackers, with gradually more tech added over time to that core function. Apple sees the category as wearable computers, which integrate fitness tracking.

Look at what happened to standalone GPS devices, point and shoot digital cameras, and MP3 players. All swallowed up almost completely by smartphones. The lesson I take from that is that people prefer multifunction devices that can do more over dedicated single function devices. So it will go with wearables, also. (And for the record, I neither have nor want either a Fitbit or an Apple Watch in their present forms.)

 

[Avieshek]

The question is now than, will they adopt BE 4.3 when the iPhone 7 comes out?

 

[honglong1976]

I refuse to buy Fitbit until they have Health Kit Integration.

I currently only have their Aria scale and luckily myfitnesspal syncs the weights from fitbit and puts it in health kit

Place your FitBit order because this free app syncs fitbit with healthkit. I have used it for quite some time and it works flawlessly.

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/power-sync-for-fitbit-sync/id1071544839?mt=8

 

[TallManNY]

I refuse to buy Fitbit until they have Health Kit Integration.

I currently only have their Aria scale and luckily myfitnesspal syncs the weights from fitbit and puts it in health kit

Ha, I do the same thing. Have my fitness pull my weight from the scale, then have health kit pull my weight from my fitnesspal. It is ridiculous, but it works.

I like the fitbit one as a clip and used to track my steps with it. But since I've got an Apple Watch I've just decided to use that.
[doublepost=1462275639][/doublepost]

FitBit is absolutely killing it. I see FitBits everywhere, however I only semi-occasionally see an Apple Watch. Not that the two are in the same category necessarily. And man, for $130 for the Charge HR, the things are a steal.

The Apple Watch is so much more powerful and the sport is only $349, so $219 more, I don't see why you would go with a Fitbit these days. And let's assume that of the extra $200 you spend on an Apple Watch, at least $75 of it is recoverable in resale. So the cost difference really isn't going to be that much.

 

[Carlanga]

FitBit is absolutely killing it. I see FitBits everywhere, however I only semi-occasionally see an Apple Watch. Not that the two are in the same category necessarily. And man, for $130 for the Charge HR, the things are a steal.

I have always consider Fitbit and other similars as the iPod of wearables. Good enough to do basic wearables things in a lower price point and if the person loved the wearable then they will probably own a smartwatch later on.

 

[2457282]

I definitely see more fitbits in the wild than Apple watches. First they are cheaper. Second they are limited in their functionality. Those two drive each other I think. Although I think Fitbits are great, I do worry about their approach. For a single purpose they do things very well at a very reasonable price. But if I have to get multiple wearable devices that are purpose built I will end up spending more and looking silly with a ton of stuff attached to me. This is why a single device with everything in it, like the Apple watch, eventually makes more sense. Wear one device, make it look fashionable and done. To be fair, Apple is not there yet as they have more features to add/improve, but I think they are on the right track - just skip the silly camera idea that MR is always talking about.

 

[69Mustang]

So Fitbit selling 21 million devices in after being on the market for 4 years with multiple products is impressive, but Apple selling over half as many in its first few months is a failure?

Neither product is a failure. I think people who view the watch as a failure are judging it against the preposterous numbers the iPhone sells today. Unreasonable and shortsighted. I did think the watch would do better considering the enormous captive market that is the Apple ecosystem.

The Apple Watch is so much more powerful and the sport is only $349, so $219 more, I don't see why you would go with a Fitbit these days. And let's assume that of the extra $200 you spend on an Apple Watch, at least $75 of it is recoverable in resale. So the cost difference really isn't going to be that much.

That's an easy question to answer. Use case is one reason some choose Fitbit over the Apple Watch. When all someone wants is fitness tracking, Fitbit is the more cost effective answer. For the cost of one watch, you can get 2 Fitbits with near $100 left over for other items (shoes, weights, P90X videos, etc) to support your fitness efforts. That 2nd Fitbit can be a gift to your workout partner - people tend to stick to regimen when working out with someone. More importantly, the Fitbit is ecosystem agnostic. It doesn't bind you to iOS, Android, or WinPhone OS.

 

[Mac 128]

To be fair, Apple is not there yet as they have more features to add/improve, but I think they are on the right track - just skip the silly camera idea that MR is always talking about.

The selfie camera is what's going to make the Watch truly popular and successful to the average customer -- that and more watch band choices. Otherwise the Watch is going to be just like every other smartwatch, with arguably a slightly less confusing UI. Unlike the iPhone, Apple is really not that far ahead of the competition, if arguably at all.

 

[v0lume4]

and if the person loved the wearable then they will probably own a smartwatch later on.

Hmm. Interesting thought about a lower-priced wearable leading to a smartwatch purchase later on.
[doublepost=1462286897][/doublepost]

The Apple Watch is so much more powerful and the sport is only $349, so $219 more, I don't see why you would go with a Fitbit these days. And let's assume that of the extra $200 you spend on an Apple Watch, at least $75 of it is recoverable in resale. So the cost difference really isn't going to be that much.

I think the Apple Watch is really cool. I'd definitely consider gen 2. While the FitBit only does 2 or 3 things, it does those things incredibly well. FitBit is laser-focused. I'd happily pay $130 for an incredibly good HR tracker (with a great app!). On the other hand, I'd probably purchase an Apple Watch for notifications more so than for its fitness tracking. But the Apple Watch is $350. $350 for notifications and inferior fitness tracking to Fitbit? I personally wouldn't buy it. But, like I said, gen 2 could be a game changer.

 

[TallManNY]

Hmm. Interesting thought about a lower-priced wearable leading to a smartwatch purchase later on.
[doublepost=1462286897][/doublepost]
I think the Apple Watch is really cool. I'd definitely consider gen 2. While the FitBit only does 2 or 3 things, it does those things incredibly well. FitBit is laser-focused. I'd happily pay $130 for an incredibly good HR tracker (with a great app!). On the other hand, I'd probably purchase an Apple Watch for notifications more so than for its fitness tracking. But the Apple Watch is $350. $350 for notifications and inferior fitness tracking to Fitbit? I personally wouldn't buy it. But, like I said, gen 2 could be a game changer.

I haven't looked into Fitbit HR. How is the Apple Watch an inferior fitness tracker to it? Don't they do the same thing equally well?

The problem for Fitbit is, as you say, that Gen 2 Apple Watch is going to be significantly improved. And it is probably going to cost the same as the current Gen sells for now. FitBit is focused, but they are going to be competing against a do everything device on our wrists that will be more compelling every year.

 

[Mac 128]

I haven't looked into Fitbit HR. How is the Apple Watch an inferior fitness tracker to it? Don't they do the same thing equally well?

The problem for Fitbit is, as you say, that Gen 2 Apple Watch is going to be significantly improved. And it is probably going to cost the same as the current Gen sells for now. FitBit is focused, but they are going to be competing against a do everything device on our wrists that will be more compelling every year.

You're assuming that most people want that. I don't want to wear the same watch to the gym that I wear to work. And frankly having a dedicated device to wear to the gym save battery life on the watch I wear for the rest of the day. I don't necessarily want to wear my work watch to dress functions. There are things I might like in a sport watch like GPS, that I don't necessarily want in a daily driver, and certainly not in a "nice" watch I wear to specific functions. I wouldn't want to wear my nice watch in circumstances where it might get banged around, or wet, like hiking or boating. And then there's the cost. If I only need targeted functions in certain occasions, seems like it would be better to buy lower-priced watches that did these things, rather than put all of my money in one higher priced Watch that has varying degrees of effectiveness for every function, and then have to deal with subjecting it to all conditions I might chose to use it under.

Your argument is a double-edged sword. Apple has an ecosystem and greater integration than its competition, but it can also be used solely on a iPhone at present. And in the end, it's a lot more expensive than the alternatives. Not everyone needs everything all the time.