|
FlamingLiberal posted:I was really glad to read that. The Theranos movie will FTFY 
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Rupert Murdoch sunk, and I do mean sunk, $100M into Theranos . For once, a non-paywalled WSJ article. they're never paywalled with a google redirect
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Landsknecht posted:they're never paywalled with a google redirect Ohhhhhhh. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
So Pebble is being sold to Fitbit for "small amounts of money" (~40m) after the CEO rejected an offer from Citizen for 700m a year ago  quote:According to a report from The Information, Fitbit is buying smartwatch maker Pebble for a "small amount" of money. One source says Fitbit is paying between $34 and $40 million for the company and is "barely covering their debts." TechCrunch reports: Could've been worse, I guess but running out of VC money after selling a product for three years is pretty stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't have written another cheque into them at that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
 at the hubris of the CEO. He could have had 10-times his fortunes just by not succumbing to the Silicon Valley cargo cult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Well you're not gonna get into the three commas club with only 700m, so what would be the point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
i thought successfully crowdfunded companies couldn't decrease in value?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:
Wearable technology seems like a thing people would want if it actually worked and I don't think it's been obvious at all which of the three models is going to ultimately win. Like pebble made all the heavy processing happen in the phone and beamed it to the watch, stuff like iwatch and wear have computers inside the watch that does the heavy lifting and just get simple signals from the phone and stuff like fitbits are basically glorified regular watches without a lot of computer tech involved beyond what is needed to run sensors. I think it seemed reasonable for a long time to think pebble could be the ultimate winner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
And it might turn out that all three options crash and burn. Pebble's in the shitter, obviously, Motorola isn't planning a new 360 (http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/1/13811154/motorola-moto-smartwatch-plans-halted), and even Apple wasn't dong so hot. Not sure what's the latest on fitness trackers but eventually people would probably realize that they're pretty useless for most of them too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
The real issue was that wearables had loads of hype when Pebble burst onto the scene, and they were seen as innovators as the first non-rear end smartwatch maker. People thought this industry was one killer device away from creating a smartphone-level cultural phenomenon. That ridiculous Citizen deal was because they were scared shitless the Apple Watch was about to launch and they thought it might eat into luxury watch sales in a big way. They wanted to avoid a repeat performance of the iPhone where the existing smartphone makers gave them more than a year unchallenged because they didn't realize it would steal their customers until it was too late. Buying Pebble would let them get a product to market quickly to compete and the cred to say it was a legitimate Apple Watch competitor rather than the me-too thing it'd probably ultimately end up being. Then the Apple Watch came out and the market... increased moderately. So that's why the valuation dried up. Migicovsky would have been in a good position to realize this if he hadn't been so busy huffing his own farts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
I feel like fitness trackers are one of those things that people will buy once and wear until they get destroyed. I think a lot of people thought they would be like smartphones, where people would upgrade regularly, but that hasn't proved to be the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
That's the thing that's ended up hampering most new hardware categories, honestly. Even if they have a huge initial sales number, they never quite grow into the cash cow that analysts are expecting because people just don't replace them very often. IPad is a good example of this, too. They sold HUGE the first year, and everybody thought they'd eclipse smartphones, even... but then sales were more moderate after that because it turns out the replacement cycle for a tablet looks more like a computer than a phone. About the only hardware tech I expect might generate money on the order of smartphones is the Amazon Echo. And that's because it's more of a platform play and it's real job is to shift commerce onto Amazon from other sources so the replacement cycle doesn't matter as much. Assuming Amazon doesn't get broken up by anti-trust watchdogs because the Washington Post wrote something unflattering about President Trump, of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
I think fitness trackers have an initial period of usefulness but once you've made those lifestyle changes and regularly get your 10k steps or whatever then the thing becomes useless because it doesn't have any new information to offer
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Farchanter posted:I feel like fitness trackers are one of those things that people will buy once and wear until they get destroyed. I think a lot of people thought they would be like smartphones, where people would upgrade regularly, but that hasn't proved to be the case. A study came out recently -- sorry, I didn't save a link -- saying that FitBit heartbeat reporting was no more accurate than random chance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:And it might turn out that all three options crash and burn. Pebble's in the shitter, obviously, Motorola isn't planning a new 360 (http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/1/13811154/motorola-moto-smartwatch-plans-halted), and even Apple wasn't dong so hot. Not sure what's the latest on fitness trackers but eventually people would probably realize that they're pretty useless for most of them too. Batteries and price make them basically all useless. They are a clearly useful piece of technology but not THAT useful. Like if they cost 30 bucks and had a 6 day battery almost everyone would end up with one, but as a 300+ dollar item that can't make it a day they just aren't worth the hassle. I think this why pebble thought it had a shot, they are the cheaper and lower power use option, but still not really close to what would make them an every day item. They are an object that is certainly useful to most people but not a thing that is life changing enough to put up with the level of guff it takes to keep them running.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A study came out recently -- sorry, I didn't save a link -- saying that FitBit heartbeat reporting was no more accurate than random chance. How is it that silicon valley, home of the data science ~*revolution*~, doesn't seem to understand basic sampling?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:A study came out recently -- sorry, I didn't save a link -- saying that FitBit heartbeat reporting was no more accurate than random chance. In best case controlled clinical trials it only manages 80% accuracy. Chest straps get around 99%. Accuracy for fitbits in real world use will be lower because people won't have it tightly cinched up against their wrist skin like optical heartbeat sensors require for optimal results, while chest straps are much more forgiving of non-ideal placement. Fitbit is in a bit of trouble because the initial clinical research coming out shows that they don't actually work as a motivational tool or produce any meaningful health impact. People increase their activity for a month then rapidly return to their previous habits and eventually just stop using it. It seems they have already lost their cachet as "look how health conscious I am" conspicuous consumption and soon health plans won't bother subsidizing them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:In best case controlled clinical trials it only manages 80% accuracy. Chest straps get around 99%. Accuracy for fitbits in real world use will be lower because people won't have it tightly cinched up against their wrist skin like optical heartbeat sensors require for optimal results, while chest straps are much more forgiving of non-ideal placement. Ooh, thank you for showing up with actual data! Most of the photos I've seen of Fitbits show them worn fairly loosely, like a bangle rather than a strap watch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Here's the study: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2566167 They conclude that wrist worn Hearn rate monitors should not be used to monitor heart rate for situations that matter like in people with cardiac issues who need to keep their heart rate low. Basically wrist worn heart rate monitors should have a giant "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer on them. Shifty Pony fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Batteries and price make them basically all useless. They are a clearly useful piece of technology but not THAT useful. Like if they cost 30 bucks and had a 6 day battery almost everyone would end up with one, but as a 300+ dollar item that can't make it a day they just aren't worth the hassle. I think this why pebble thought it had a shot, they are the cheaper and lower power use option, but still not really close to what would make them an every day item. They are an object that is certainly useful to most people but not a thing that is life changing enough to put up with the level of guff it takes to keep them running. Smartwatches and their apps also derive their value from being worn every day and becoming a habitual part of someone's lifestyle. That's tough in the watch market where a watch is often part of a larger rotation and considered a piece of jewelry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
I will admit to thinking that if I had throwaway money, I'd buy a Ringly, but the fact that the battery isn't replaceable holds me back. Who wants costume jewelry with an expiration date? I don't wear the same ring everyday, but it would be fun to have one in the rotation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
I think an issue with fitbit lately is they sell like 8 devices without strong differences between them all It's good they continue supporting old devices but it feels like they're flailing and wasting dev money on so many new devices
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
nachos posted:I think fitness trackers have an initial period of usefulness but once you've made those lifestyle changes and regularly get your 10k steps or whatever then the thing becomes useless because it doesn't have any new information to offer people who are into fitness don't really need fitness trackers, the traditional method of checking your results by getting naked at a mirror and seeing if you're sexy yet works pretty well. fitness trackers are really more for stats nerds and silicon valley people who want to optimize and quantify the lived experience also i got a fitbit once as a gift and wore it for a while but when i looked at the stats my step counter was way off due to my restless leg syndrome depending on if i put it on my left side or my right side on any particular day. like one day it counted me as having walked four miles when i had been in a 6 hour meeting. really no better than a cheap $5 pedometer boner confessor fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:people who are into fitness don't really need fitness trackers, the traditional method of checking your results by getting naked at a mirror and seeing if you're sexy yet works pretty well. fitness trackers are really more for stats nerds and silicon valley people who want to optimize and quantify the lived experience
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Actually, you can be extremely physically fit and see fat when you look at the mirror. See earlier this year's Sports Illustrated (I think) photoshoot featuring various naked Olympic athletes. "Am I pretty?" has nothing to do with "Is my heart working well, are my muscles in shape, is my blood oxygenation good?" See the recent study that showed that various high-fat diets, e.g. Atkins, cause you to lose weight without increasing fitness. if you're really interested in that though you probably know about pre-tracker ways to measure them, including regular checkups. like a $300 geegaw may not be sufficient to provide you with the level of information you want about your body, so fitness trackers cover a weird middle ground for people who are mostly sort of into fitness but not like gym rats
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Yeah fitness is a very contentious and socially influenced topic skinny == healthy in the mind of large portions of the population body builders and strongmen seen as peaks of fitness but die young, become exhausted going up stairs, suffer mobility issues, joint problems, cant dead hang to save their lives etc fitness and health are also big money in late capitalism, preying on people's insecurities
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:How is it that silicon valley, home of the data science ~*revolution*~, doesn't seem to understand basic sampling? "Data science" apparently doesn't equal statistics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
The quantified self just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that could ever be mainstream, and that's sorta what Fitbit et al need to make silly con valley money. I've got one but only because it was the cheapest way to get a wrist vibrating alarm so I can get up with waking kids/spouse. The novelty of actually tracking movement and checking the app wears off super fast, and doesn't signify health to me even remotely compared to how far/long I can swim, run, exercise, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Batteries and price make them basically all useless. They are a clearly useful piece of technology but not THAT useful. Like if they cost 30 bucks and had a 6 day battery almost everyone would end up with one, but as a 300+ dollar item that can't make it a day they just aren't worth the hassle. I think this why pebble thought it had a shot, they are the cheaper and lower power use option, but still not really close to what would make them an every day item. They are an object that is certainly useful to most people but not a thing that is life changing enough to put up with the level of guff it takes to keep them running. Pebble was cheap enough and feature rich enough to actually be at what I thought was the sweet spot for a smartwatch - Apple et al really went overboard with Hi-def displays (for what? Watching Avengers on a 1 inch screen?) and touchscreens and a lot of onboard computing like they were trying to make a phone in miniature. Pebble stuck to essential functions like email/text notifications/actions/responses and most of its apps took advantage of the wrist-display in meaningful ways while offloading the computing load to the device that normally does that anyway. When the smartphone has already carved out high-powered computing and communication niche in consumer America why would you try to replace it with a watch that MUST have worse functionality as a function of its compact size? Its better to synergize with it effectively and make the pair of them a gestalt, greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe I'm gushing because Pebble got me to believe in smartwatches as a viable and useful technology. Maybe my problem is that in my day to day life I can't be pulling my phone out to check it every minute. I dunno. LeJackal fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
as a fitness goon, here are my hot takes: - you don't need anything more than a clock, a map (for figuring out running/cycling routes), a grocery bag and a gym membership for fitness - the change of lifestyle must be within you, and an excellent recent study suggests everpresent gadgets telling you what to do are worse than simply logging stuff (for which your phone apps or a pen are perfectly fine) - I emphasize 'excellent' because most published research is false. Nowhere is this more apparent than in fitness science, with low sample sizes and inability to create a good control group (almost any weightlifting study starts with people who already lift, for instance). A lot of fitness trackers and apps use these poor studies as recommendations. - combining all this, fitness trackers are garbage designed to take your money for something you don't need, or indeed actually want. - smartwatches are extra garbage because they're only good at things my phone does better, all while looking bad and needing charging, things mechanical watches figured out a century ago. BTW: Please Work Out. dex_sda fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
I have one (well, I've had a few due to loss/breakage/etc) and I enjoy using it. I got some for family members and the community features work well for that; my mom always wants to beat me so that encourages her to get out for walks around her neighborhood more and offers another connection between my wife and her sister who is far away at school. Data from pedometers and gps trackers isnt a replacement for motivation but it can be a kick in the pants sometimes as well as help break perceptions vs more objective information. It's also just fun to see geographical and other information about a bike ride or hike to compare to the subjective experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
I do marathon running and the San Francisco marathon has a big expo during registration, last year it was over half filled with companies with different "energy" snacks, and this year it was at least 2/3rds wearables companies that all seemed useless and redundant. The only long term applications I see for wearables is medical devices, not fitness stuff because like dex_sda said, you just don't need that stuff for fitness (and some of the other stuff you can just do with phone apps)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
I see my Fitbit more as a watch with a useful vibrating alarm that can sorta track your steps, sleep activity and heart rate rather than a fitness necessity. You really only need a pair of shoes and open space to get in good cardiovascular shape, but the running apps I've used gave me a motivation boost by showing my improvements in pace and distance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:I see my Fitbit more as a watch with a useful vibrating alarm that can sorta track your steps, sleep activity and heart rate rather than a fitness necessity. Nobody says you shouldn't log things, progress is important for maintaining motiviation. It's just that it doesn't seem to actually work if you let a gadget do it for you. 'Effect of Wearable Technology Combined With a Lifestyle Intervention on Long-term Weight Loss' is the study making the rounds. Primarily because it is an incredibly well designed study - multiple periods of tracking lowering the probability of false positive; conclusion applies to what was almost certainly the thing they set out to measure in the first place; exact same initial conditions for both groups including a thorough education in what works and what doesn't for weight loss, thus ensuring a good measurement dependent almost solely on the logging method; and a huge sample size (470) randomized into the two groups providing an excellent p value (below 0.001). The study was also very lengthy (2 years), which helps measure any effects of losing motivation. In the end, the study finds a significantly bigger weight loss for people who logged things (diet + exercise) themselves on a website. There are some interesting extra conclusions looking at the data: - the people who used wearables had smaller amounts of added new activity, and had a much bigger 'crash' effect in the second interval. There was a crash effect for self-loggers, but for the people using wearables, it actually went into negative compared to baseline. Yes, they did less activity than they have beforehand at a certain point. - that was light physical activity (which is consistent with what you'd love a fitness tracker for, light jogging and step counting). When moderate-to-vigorous activity is taken into account, people who used wearables actually had less activity of that sort compared to baseline the entire study. As time went on, the discrepancy lowered; my conjecture is that the light physical activity slowly allowed them to adapt to moderate-to-vigorous activity. You might say 'that is good', except the self-logging group had an enormous increase in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from the start, a lead they kept throughout the entire study. * it has to be noted here that the baseline for light and moderate-to-vigorous activity was based on a baseline assessment, which was at best 'ballpark'. Nevertheless, the self-logging group always outdid their ballpark, which the wearables group consistently failed. - people in the self-logging group actually ate more calories a day and still lost more weight, no doubt the result of increased physical activity. - in the self-logging group, not a single high resting blood pressure alert was recorded in the last measurement interval. In the wearables group, the level of incidence was of the same order as the starting one, though lowered. This 'self-logging better' holds across all health markers throughout the study, except for one: non-serious medical events. This is consistent with the level of activity: people who work out vigorously get small injuries and acute medical problems often, while avoiding the serious and chronic ones. - in the end, it has to be noted that wearables also did work. Some weight was lost, and on the whole, there was a lowered incidence of medical problems. Just not nearly as good as the self-reporting group did, which was an almost total removal of serious cardiovascular health issues and a more significant weight drop. It's also uncertain if the weight loss can be attributed to the wearables, or was it the education part of the study that caused it. All these are stunningly consistent with the primary finding. I personally think it's because when you log this poo poo yourself, you have to write it down when you progress, but also when you don't. You're keeping yourself honest, and you keep pushing yourself. It's spectacularly easy to just scroll past the three weeks where you didn't actually go running on an app, or the three workouts where you didn't beat your pace even though you planned to. It's also really easy to look on your wrist and convince yourself those 10000 steps mean you can skip the gym. Naturally, this is just my own conjecture, but I've been in the gym and on the track a long time and it's what I put my money on. I get pumped writing down numbers in my diary, and I get pumped staring at my mechanical watch trying to beat my previous 3 mile time. I'd link the study but it's paywalled. If you have access to a university network (or certain... hub like... science access projects...) you'll find it by googling the title. dex_sda fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
The one place I would expect wearables to help is compliance. My wife is a dietician and people are just absolutely awful at following through with any sort of tracking/logging plan. A patient coming back a month later with week of food logs and spotty glucose readings when they agreed to do an entire month is a great result. She has found that suggesting something like MyFitnessPal really improves the chance of her getting the data even if the patient never bothers to look at how they did over the time period. So while it is probably an order of magnitude better to have a patient check their own blood pressure and heart rate and manually enter it into a webpage, from a clinician's perspective getting that data might be worth it. Perhaps the best course of action would be manual tracking first and then using tech assisted stuff if the patient doesn't follow through?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:The one place I would expect wearables to help is compliance. My wife is a dietician and people are just absolutely awful at following through with any sort of tracking/logging plan. A patient coming back a month later with week of food logs and spotty glucose readings when they agreed to do an entire month is a great result. She has found that suggesting something like MyFitnessPal really improves the chance of her getting the data even if the patient never bothers to look at how they did over the time period. If you want the data sure. It's just that these sort of wearables aren't the FitBits or iWatches or whatever. You've got Holter monitors for cardiovascular problems etc, and your smartphone for MyFitnessPal logging. I guess I'm trying to say two things. One, regarding the recent conversation in this thread: in the context of the larger population, wearables are a real lovely gimmick. They aren't a smartphone, they aren't a fashion statement (or in the case of smartwatches, they are the anathema of one), and they aren't all that useful for what they're proclaimed to be for. And most people who bought one realise that, that's why there isn't a market for people getting upgrades and why they don't seem to be taking off like a lot of Silicon Valley crap did. Second, please work out. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:smartwatches are extra garbage because they're only good at things my phone does better, all while looking bad and needing charging, things mechanical watches figured out a century ago. This is a little hyperbolic. They certainly have the ability to augment the capability of the smartphone--the question is if the functionality they add is worth the hassle of having to charge and deal with another device.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
I'm reminded of this Onion article, which describes a revolutionary new app that results in 100% of patients reporting that they met their fitness goals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Wearables might find a use if they get redesigned to be more useful. Remember the first portable tablets like the Newton or the PalmPilot? Remember how people laughed at them as novelties? A few years down the line they improved the interface and they suddenly became ubiquitous. At the moment, talking to Siri is like talking to your deaf gran while she's trying to cook a four course meal with the radio on. Maybe in 10 years time, it'll actually be convenient?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:55
|
|