Google has just rolled out the Pixel Watch 3, and it’s already being hailed as the company’s best smartwatch yet. The Pixel Watch now offers a unique blend of Google’s top-tier software and Fitbit’s legendary fitness tracking, making it one of the most well-rounded smartwatches to date. But here’s the kicker: it might be the only smartwatch you’ll be seeing from Fitbit moving forward.

In an interview with Engadget, Sandeep Waraich, senior director of product management for Pixel Wearables, hinted at the future of Fitbit’s smartwatch lineup. When questioned about the potential for new Fitbit smartwatches, Waraich stated, “Pixel Watch is our smartwatch part of the portfolio.”

Before you gasp, Fitbit isn’t disappearing altogether. The report notes that while the Fitbit brand will stick around, its focus will be solely on fitness trackers like the Inspire, Luxe, and Charge series, leaving the smartwatch game to the Pixel Watch line.

We reached out to Google for a comment, and the company had this to say:

“We are very committed to Fitbit, and even more importantly to the customers that use and depend on those products and technology. It’s also worth noting that many of the health and fitness features we launched in Pixel Watch 3 were because of Fitbit’s innovation and ground-breaking fitness advancements. In addition, we just launched Fitbit Ace LTE, and you’ll continue to see new products and innovation from Fitbit.”

Now, while this statement shows Google’s love for Fitbit, it doesn’t really address the elephant in the room. The statement keeps things vague about whether we’ll actually see any new Fitbit *smartwatches*. Instead, it talks up Fitbit’s fitness features being integrated into the Pixel Watch — a detail that, while true, leaves the original report’s assertion basically unchallenged.

When you look at what Google's been doing with Fitbit recently, it kind of makes sense.

The company never explicitly announced any plans to phase out the brand. However, there have been clear signs, like the Fitbit Sense 2 being an objective downgrade from the original Sense. Ever since the Pixel Watch came along, it felt like Fitbit smartwatches were being nudged out of the spotlight. The older Fitbit Versa 3 and Sense models boasted features like third-party app support, Wi-Fi connectivity, and Google Assistant integration, which are absent in the newer Versa 4 and Sense 2.

Given these developments, one could argue that rather than continuing to release diluted versions of Fitbit smartwatches, Google might be better off retiring the Fitbit smartwatch line entirely. This would preserve the brand’s reputation rather than risking it with subpar offerings. For fans of Fitbit, there is still hope that the brand’s legacy will continue through its fitness trackers, like the Fitbit Charge 7.

It was December 2006. Twenty-nine-year-old entrepreneur James Park had just purchased a Wii game system. It included the Wii Nunchuk, a US $29 handheld controller with motion sensors that let game players interact by moving their bodies—swinging at a baseball, say, or boxing with a virtual partner.

Park became obsessed with his Wii.

“I was a tech-gadget geek,” he says. “Anyone holding that nunchuk was fascinated by how it worked. It was the first time that I had seen a compelling consumer use for accelerometers.”

After a while, though, Park spotted a flaw in the Wii: It got you moving, sure, but it trapped you in your living room. What if, he thought, you could take what was cool about the Wii and use it in a gadget that got you out of the house?

The first generation of Fitbit trackers shipped in this package in 2009. NewDealDesign

“That,” says Park, “was the aha moment.” His idea became Fitbit, an activity tracker that has racked up sales of more than 136 million units since its first iteration hit the market in late 2009.

But back to that “aha moment.” Park quickly called his friend and colleague Eric Friedman. In 2002, the two, both computer scientists by training, had started a photo-sharing company called HeyPix, which they sold to CNET in 2005. They were still working for CNET in 2006, but it wasn’t a bad time to think about doing something different.

Friedman loved Park’s idea.

“My mother was an active walker,” Friedman says. “She had a walking group and always had a pedometer with her. And my father worked with augmentative engineering [assistive technology] for the elderly and handicapped. We’d played with accelerometer tech before. So it immediately made sense. We just had to refine it.”

The two left CNET, and in April 2007 they incorporated the startup with Park as CEO and Friedman as chief technology officer. Park and Friedman weren’t trying to build the first step counter—mechanical pedometers date back to the 1960s. They weren’t inventing the first smart activity tracker— BodyMedia, a medical device manufacturer, had in 1999 included accelerometers with other sensors in an armband designed to measure calories burned. And Park and Friedman didn’t get a smart consumer tracker to market first. In 2006, Nike had worked with Apple to launch the Nike+ for runners, a motion-tracking system that required a special shoe and a receiver that plugged into an iPod

Fitbit’s founders James Park [left] and Eric Friedman released their first product in 2009, when this photo was taken. Peter DaSilva/The New York Times/Redux

Park wasn’t aware of any of this when he thought about getting fitness out of the living room, but the two quickly did their research and figured out what they did and didn’t want to do.

“We didn’t want to create something expensive, targeted at athletes,” he says. “Or something that was dumb and not connected to software. And we wanted something that could provide social connection, like photo sharing did.”

That something had to be comfortable to wear all day, be easy to use, upload its data seamlessly so the data could be tracked and shared with friends, and rarely need charging. Not an easy combination of requirements.

“It’s one of those things where the simpler you get, the harder it becomes to design something well,” Park says.

The first Fitbit was designed for women

The first design decision was the biggest one. Where on the body did they expect people to put this wearable? They weren’t going to ask people to buy special shoes, like the Nike+, or wear a thick band on their upper arms, like BodyMedia’s tracker.

They hired NewDealDesign to figure out some of these details.

“In our first two weeks, after multiple discussions with Eric and James, we decided that the project was going to be geared to women,” says Gadi Amit, president and principal designer of NewDealDesign. “That decision was the driver of the form factor.”

“We wanted to start with something familiar to people,” Park says, “and people tended to clip pedometers to their belts.” So a clip-on device made sense. But women generally don’t wear belts.

To do what it needed to do, the clip-on gadget would have to contain a roughly 2.5-by-2.5-centimeter (1-by-1-inch) printed circuit board, Amit recalls. The big breakthrough came when the team decided to separate the electronics and the battery, which in most devices are stacked. “By doing that, and elongating it a bit, we found that women could put it anywhere,” Amit says. “Many would put it in their bras, so we targeted the design to fit a bra in the center front, purchasing dozens of bras for testing.”

The decision to design for women also drove the overall look, to “subdue the user interface,” as Amit puts it. They hid a low-resolution monochrome OLED display behind a continuous plastic cover, with the display lighting up only when you asked it to. This choice helped give the device an impressive battery life.

The earliest Fitbit devices used an animated flower as a progress indicator. NewDealDesign

They also came up with the idea of a flower as a progress indicator—inspired, Park says, by the Tamagotchi, one of the biggest toy fads of the late 1990s. “So we had a little animated flower that would shrink or grow based on how active you were,” Park explains.

And after much discussion over controls, the group gave the original Fitbit just one button.

Hiring an EE—from Dad—to design Fitbit’s circuitry

Park and Friedman knew enough about electronics to build a crude prototype, “stuffing electronics into a box made of cut-up balsam wood,” Park says. But they also knew that they needed to bring in a real electrical engineer to develop the hardware.

Fortunately, they knew just whom to call. Friedman’s father, Mark, had for years been working to develop a device for use in nursing homes, to remotely monitor the position of bed-bound patients. Mark’s partner in this effort was Randy Casciola, an electronics engineer and currently president of Morewood Design Labs.

Eric called his dad, told him about the gadget he and Park envisioned, and asked if he and Casciola could build a prototype.

“Mark and I thought we’d build a quick-and-dirty prototype, something they could get sensor data from and use for developing software. And then they’d go off to Asia and get it miniaturized there,” Casciola recalls. “But one revision led to another.” Casciola ended up working on circuit designs for Fitbits virtually full time until the sale of the company to Google, announced in 2019 and completed in early 2021.

“We saw some pretty scary manufacturers. Dirty facilities, flash marks on their injection-molded plastics, very low precision.”
—James Park

“We were just two little guys in a little office in Pittsburgh,” Casciola says. “Before Fitbit came along, we had realized that our nursing-home thing wasn’t likely to ever be a product and had started taking on some consulting work. I had no idea Fitbit would become a household name. I just like working on anything, whether I think it’s a good idea or not, or even whether someone is paying me or not.”

The earliest prototypes were pretty large, about 10 by 15 cm, Casciola says. They were big enough to easily hook up to test equipment, yet small enough to strap on to a willing test subject.

After that, Park and Eric Friedman—along with Casciola, two contracted software engineers, and a mechanical design firm—struggled with turning the bulky prototype into a small and sleek device that counted steps, stored data until it could be uploaded and then transmitted it seamlessly, had a simple user interface, and didn’t need daily charging.

“Figuring out the right balance of battery life, size, and capability kept us occupied for about a year,” Park says.

The Fitbit prototype, sitting on its charger, booted up for the first time in December 2008. James Park

After deciding to include a radio transmitter, they made a big move: They turned away from the Bluetooth standard for wireless communications in favor of the ANT protocol, a technology developed by Garmin that used far less power. That meant the Fitbit wouldn’t be able to upload to computers directly. Instead, the team designed their own base station, which could be left plugged into a computer and would grab data anytime the Fitbit wearer passed within range.

Casciola didn’t have expertise in radio-frequency engineering, so he relied on the supplier of the ANT radio chips: Nordic Semiconductor, in Trondheim, Norway.

“They would do a design review of the circuit board layout,” he explains. “Then we would send our hardware to Norway. They would do RF measurements on it and tell me how to tweak the values of the capacitors and conductors in the RF chain, and I would update the schematic. It’s half engineering and half black magic to get this RF stuff working.”

Another standard they didn’t use was the ubiquitous USB charging connection.

“We couldn’t use USB,” Park says. “It just took up too much volume. Somebody actually said to us, ‘Whatever you do, don’t design a custom charging system because it’ll be a pain, it’ll be super expensive.’ But we went ahead and built one. And it was a pain and super expensive, but I think it added a level of magic. You just plopped your device on [the charger]. It looked beautiful, and it worked consistently.”

Most of the electronics they used were off the shelf, including a 16-bit Texas Instruments MSP430 microprocessor, and 92 kilobytes of flash memory and 4 kb of RAM to hold the operating system, the rest of the code, all the graphics, and at least seven days’ worth of collected data.

The Fitbit was designed to resist sweat, and they generally survived showers and quick dips, says Friedman. “But hot tubs were the bane of our existence. People clipped it to their swimsuits and forgot they had it on when they jumped into the hot tub.”

Fitbit’s demo or die moment

Up to this point, the company was surviving on $400,000 invested by Park, Friedman, and a few people who had backed their previous company. But more money would be needed to ramp up manufacturing. And so a critical next step would be a live public demo, which they scheduled for the TechCrunch conference in San Francisco in September 2008.

Live demonstrations of new technologies are always risky, and this one walked right up to the edge of disaster. The plan was to ask an audience member to call out a number, and then Park, wearing the prototype in its balsa-wood box, would walk that number of steps. The count would sync wirelessly to a laptop projecting to a screen on stage. When Friedman hit refresh on the browser, the step count would appear on the screen. What could go wrong?

A lot. Friedman explains: “You think counting steps is easy, but let’s say you do three steps. One, two, three. When you bring your feet together, is that a step or is that the end? It’s much easier to count 1,000 steps than it is to do 10 steps. If I walk 10 steps and am off by one, that’s a glaring error. With 1,000, that variance becomes noise.”

The first semi-assembled Fitbit records its inaugural step count. James Park

After a lot of practice, the two thought they could pull it off. Then came the demo. “While I was walking, the laptop crashed,” Park says. “I wasn’t aware of that. I was just walking happily. Eric had to reboot everything while I was still walking. But the numbers showed up; I don’t think anyone except Eric realized what had happened.”

That day, some 2,000 preorders poured in. And Fitbit closed a $2 million round of venture investment the next month.

Though Park and Friedman had hoped to get Fitbits into users’ hands—or clipped onto their bras—by Christmas of 2008, they missed that deadline by a year.

The algorithms that determine Fitbit’s count

Part of Fitbit’s challenge of getting from prototype to shippable product was software development. They couldn’t expect users to walk as precisely as Park did for the demo. Instead, the device’s algorithms needed to determine what a step was and what was a different kind of motion—say, someone scratching their nose.

“Data collection was difficult,” Park says. “Initially, it was a lot of us wearing prototype devices doing a variety of different activities. Our head of research, Shelten Yuen, would follow, videotaping so we could go back and count the exact number of steps taken. We would wear multiple devices simultaneously, to compare the data collects against each other.”

Friedman remembers one such outing. “James was tethered to the computer, and he was pretending to walk his dog around the Haight [in San Francisco], narrating this little play that he’s putting on: ‘OK, I’m going to stop. The dog is going to pee on this tree. And now he’s going over there.’ The great thing about San Francisco is that nobody looks strangely at two guys tethered together walking around talking to themselves.”

“Older people tend to have an irregular cadence—to the device, older people look a lot like buses going over potholes.” –James Park

“Pushing baby strollers was an issue,” because the wearer’s arms aren’t swinging, Park says. “So one of our guys put an ET doll in a baby stroller and walked all over the city with it.”

Road noise was another big issue. “Yuen, who was working on the algorithms, was based in Cambridge, Mass.,” Park says. “They have more potholes than we do. When he took the bus, the bus would hit the potholes and [the device would] be bouncing along, registering steps.” They couldn’t just fix the issue by looking for a regular cadence to count steps, he adds, because not everyone has a regular cadence. “Older people tend to have an irregular cadence—to the device, older people look a lot like buses going over potholes.”

Fitbit’s founders enter the world of manufacturing

A consumer gadget means mass manufacturing, potentially in huge quantities. They talked to a lot of contract-manufacturing firms, Park recalls. They realized that as a startup with an unclear future market, they wouldn’t be of interest to the top tier of manufacturers. But they couldn’t go with the lowest-budget operations, because they needed a reasonable level of quality.

“We saw some pretty scary manufacturers,” Park said. “Dirty facilities, flash marks on their injection-molded plastics [a sign of a bad seal or other errors], very low precision.” They eventually found a small manufacturer that was “pretty good but still hungry for business.” The manufacturer was headquartered in Singapore, while their surface-mount supplier, which put components directly onto printed circuit boards, was in Batam, Indonesia.

Workers assemble Fitbits by hand in October of 2008. James Park

Working with that manufacturer, Park and Friedman made some tweaks in the design of the circuitry and the shape of the case. They struggled over how to keep water—and sweat—out of the device, settling on ultrasonic welding for the case and adding a spray-on coating for the circuitry after some devices were returned with corrosion on the electronics. That required tweaking the layout to make sure the coating would get between the chips. The coating on each circuit board had to be checked and touched up by hand. When they realized that the coating increased the height of the chips, they had to tweak the layout some more.

In December 2009, just a week before the ship date, Fitbits began rolling off the production line.

“I was in a hotel room in Singapore testing one of the first fully integrated devices,” Park says. “And it wasn’t syncing to my computer. Then I put the device right next to the base station, and it started to sync. Okay, that’s good, but what was the maximum distance it could sync? And that turned out to be literally just a few inches. In every other test we had done, it was fine. It could sync from 15 or 20 feet [5 or 6 meters] away.”

The problem, Park eventually figured out, occurred when the two halves of the Fitbit case were ultrasonically welded together. In previous syncing tests, the cases had been left unsealed. The sealing process pushed the halves closer together, so that the cable for the display touched or nearly touched the antenna printed on the circuit board, which affected the radio signal. Park tried squeezing the halves together on an unsealed unit and reproduced the problem.

Getting the first generation of Fitbits into mass production required some last-minute troubleshooting. Fitbit cofounder James Park [top, standing in center] helps debug a device at the manufacturer shortly before the product’s 2009 launch. Early units from the production line are shown partially assembled [bottom]. James Park

“I thought, if we could just push that cable away from the antenna, we’d be okay,” Park said. “The only thing I could find in my hotel room to do that was toilet paper. So I rolled up some toilet paper really tight and shoved it in between the cable and the antenna. That seemed to work, though I wasn’t really confident.”

Park went to the factory the next day to discuss the problem—and his solution—with the manufacturing team. They refined his fix—replacing the toilet paper with a tiny slice of foam—and that’s how the first generation of Fitbits shipped.

Fitbit’s fast evolution

The company sold about 5,000 of those $99 first-generation units in 2009, and more than 10 times that number in 2010. The rollout wasn’t entirely smooth. Casciola recalls that Fitbit’s logistics center was sending him a surprising number of corroded devices that had been returned by customers. Casciola’s task was to tear them down and diagnose the problem.

“One of the contacts on the device, over time, was growing a green corrosion,” Casciola says. “But the other two contacts were not.” It turned out the problem came from Casciola’s design of the system-reset trigger, which allowed users to reset the device without a reset button or a removable battery. “Inevitably,” Casciola says, “firmware is going to crash. When you can’t take the battery out, you have to have another way of forcing a reset; you don’t want to have someone waiting six days for the battery to run out before restarting.”

The reset that Casciola designed was “a button on the charging station that you could poke with a paper clip. If you did this with the tracker sitting on the charger, it would reset. Of course, we had to have a way for the tracker to see that signal. When I designed the circuit to allow for that, I ended up with a nominal voltage on one pin.” This low voltage was causing the corrosion.

“If you clipped the tracker onto sweaty clothing—remember, sweat has a high salt content—a very tiny current would flow,” says Casciola. “It was just fractions of a microamp, not enough to cause a reset, but enough, over time, to cause greenish corrosion.”

Cofounders Eric Friedman [left] and James Park visit Fitbit’s manufacturer in December of 2008. James Park

On the 2012 generation of the Fitbit, called the Fitbit One, Casciola added a new type of chip, one that hadn’t been available when he was working on the original design. It allowed the single button to trigger a reset when it was held down for some seconds while the device was sitting on the charger. That eliminated the need for the active pin.

The charging interface was the source of another early problem. In the initial design, the trim of the Fitbit’s plastic casing was painted with chrome. “We originally wanted an actual metal trim,” Friedman says, “but that interfered with the radio signal.”

Chrome wasn’t a great choice either. “It caused problems with the charger interface,” Park adds. “We had to do a lot of work to prevent shorting there.”

They dropped the chrome after some tens of thousands of units were shipped—and then got compliments from purchasers about the new, chrome-less look.

Evolution happened quickly, particularly in the way the device transmitted data. In 2012, when Bluetooth LE became widely available as a new low-power communications standard, the base station was replaced by a small Bluetooth communications dongle. And eventually the dongles disappeared altogether.

“We had a huge debate about whether or not to keep shipping that dongle,” Park says. “Its cost was significant, and if you had a recent iPhone, you didn’t need it. But we didn’t want someone buying the device and then returning it because their cellphone couldn’t connect.” The team closely tracked the penetration rate of Bluetooth LE in cellphones; when they felt that number was high enough, they killed off the dongle.

Fitbit’s wrist-ward migration

After several iterations of the original Fitbit design, sometimes called the “clip” for its shape, the fitness tracker moved to the wrist. This wasn’t a matter of simply redesigning the way the device attached to the body but a rethinking of algorithms.

The impetus came from some users’ desire to better track their sleep. The Fitbit’s algorithms allowed it to identify sleep patterns, a design choice that, Park says, “was pivotal, because it changed the device from being just an activity tracker to an all-day wellness tracker.” But nightclothes didn’t offer obvious spots for attachment. So the Fitbit shipped with a thin fabric wristband intended for use just at night. Users began asking customer support if they could keep the wristband on around the clock. The answer was no; Fitbit’s step-counting algorithms at the time didn’t support that.

“My father, who turned 80 on July 5, is fixated on his step count. From 11 at night until midnight, he’s in the parking garage, going up flights of stairs. And he is in better shape than I ever remember him.” —Eric Friedman

Meanwhile, a cultural phenomenon was underway. In the mid-2000s, yellow Livestrong bracelets, made out of silicone and sold to support cancer research, were suddenly everywhere. Other causes and movements jumped on the trend with their own brightly colored wristbands. By early 2013, Fitbit and its competitors Nike and Jawbone had launched wrist-worn fitness trackers in roughly the same style as those trendy bracelets. Fitbit’s version was called the Flex, once again designed by NewDealDesign.

A no-button user interface for the Fitbit Flex

The Flex’s interface was even simpler than the original Fitbit’s one button and OLED screen: It had no buttons and no screen, just five LEDs arranged in a row and a vibrating motor. To change modes, you tapped on the surface.

“We didn’t want to replace people’s watches,” Park says. The technology wasn’t yet ready to “build a compelling device—one that had a big screen and the compute power to drive really amazing interactions on the wrist that would be worthy of that screen. The technology trends didn’t converge to make that possible until 2014 or 2015.”

The Fitbit Flex [right], the first Fitbit designed to be worn on the wrist, was released in 2013. It had no buttons and no screen. Users controlled it by tapping; five LEDs indicated progress toward a step count selected via an app [left]. iStock

“The amount of stuff the team was able to convey with just the LEDs was amazing,” Friedman recalls. “The status of where you are towards reaching your [step] goal, that’s obvious. But [also] the lights cycling to show that it’s searching for something, the vibrating when you hit your step goal, things like that.”

The tap part of the interface, though, was “possibly something we didn’t get entirely right,” Park concedes. It took much fine-tuning of algorithms after the launch to better sort out what was not tapping—like applauding. Even more important, some users couldn’t quite intuit the right way to tap.

“If it works for 98 percent of your users, but you’re growing to millions of users, 2 percent really starts adding up,” Park says. They brought the button back for the next generation of Fitbit devices.

And the rest is history

In 2010, its first full year on the market, the Fitbit sold some 50,000 units. Fitbit sales peaked in 2015, with almost 23 million devices sold that year, according to Statista. Since then, there’s been a bit of a drop-off, as multifunctional smart watches have come down in price and grown in popularity and Fitbit knockoffs entered the market. In 2021, Fitbit still boasted more than 31 million active users, according to Market.us.Media. And Fitbit may now be riding the trend back to simplicity, as people find themselves wanting to get rid of distractions and move back to simpler devices. I see this happening in my own family: My smartwatch-wearing daughter traded in that wearable for a Fitbit Charge 6 earlier this year.

Related Articles

My First Fitbit

The Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame: Fitbit

Fitbit went public in 2015 at a valuation of $4.1 billion. In 2021 Google completed its $2.1 billion purchase of the company and absorbed it into its hardware division. In April of this year, Park and Friedman left Google. Early retirement? Hardly. The two, now age 47, have started a new company that’s currently in stealth mode.

The idea of encouraging people to be active by electronically tracking steps has had staying power.

“My father, who turned 80 on July 5, is fixated on his step count,” Friedman says. “From 11 at night until midnight, he’s in the parking garage, going up flights of stairs. And he is in better shape than I ever remember him.”

What could be a better reward than that?

This article appears in the September 2024 print issue.

I got my first Fitbit nearly a decade ago. Back then, you could argue that Fitbit was a proprietary eponym — a brand name that inadvertently became synonymous with similar products due to its success or popularity. This couldn’t be further from the case in 2024. The company’s decline started well before Google’s acquisition three years ago, but stalwart Fitbit fans will argue that Mountain View’s influence is the reason for its continued downfall. I’d argue that it’s a little more complicated than that.

When Fitbit was founded in the late 2000s, it was one of a few companies that seriously considered the fitness tracker space a budding technology segment. Initial products weren’t feature-packed, but the brand built a loyal following by introducing heart rate tracking technology at a time when few other consumer products did. Following its growing success, Fitbit listed publicly in 2015, making it one of the year’s hottest IPOs. However, that initial searing heat would dissipate rapidly in the coming years due to low sales, encroaching competition from Apple and others, and a series of troubled launches.

Understandably, when Google came knocking at the end of 2019, a wounded Fitbit was more than happy to listen. I’m sure that plenty of Fitbit users were, too. The company was faltering; financial and developmental backing from a tech giant would be a big shot in the arm. The deal was completed in January 2021, ushering in the Google Fitbit era.

The Google-Fitbit era

Credit: Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority

In reality, Google hasn’t been the greatest custodian of the fitness marque. Its priority has been implementing Fitbit’s smarts into its own refreshed health push rather than accommodating those already part of the ecosystem. Since it changed hands to Mountain View in 2021, Fitbit users have seen sweeping changes to the platform. While Google has integrated the Fitbit platform and technology with its Pixel Watch series, it has gutted other aspects of the overall experience to align with its vision.

It killed the popular Challenges, Adventures, Trophies, and Open Groups — fan-favorite gamification and social features. A few months later, it introduced a divisive app update with Google’s design language, lots of white space, and a layout that makes quick glances at key metrics a challenge.

Google's priority has been consuming Fitbit's smarts into its own health push rather than accommodating existing users.

Despite a loud and incessant user outcry, Google’s changes didn’t stop there. At the end of 2023, Google announced Fitbit’s exit from over 30 markets, more than halving its regional availability, to align the brand with Google’s own official product presence. This move was perhaps the most painful of Google’s decisions thus far, at least for me. It stripped the Fitbit brand from regions like South Africa, where it had operated for decades.

More turmoil came this month when the company shut down Fitbit’s online dashboard. It was the only other way users could view their Fitbit stats, input data, and control their devices beyond the app. Google’s forced shutdown and lack of a genuine web-based successor further alienated established users and gave those who explicitly relied on the interface no alternative. The requirement for Fitbit users to migrate to Google accounts is also rapidly approaching, forcing those with legacy Fitbit accounts to merge them with their Google profiles. Many users don’t want to serve Google their medical history.

Once a hardware company

Sure, these are arguably all fixable issues. Google could always revise its market availability, tinker with the app, or allow Fitbit accounts to remain siloed. These problems are small compared to the real issue: Fitbit’s waning hardware appeal. The devices released since Google’s acquisition make Fitbit’s place in Google’s wearable strategy more apparent.

There have been eight major device launches under the Fitbit banner since 2021, most notably the Charge 5, Versa 4, and Sense 2. The former launched without issue, but the fitness tracker has been plagued by software update issues that left many users’ devices bricked. Fitbit acknowledged the issue by July 2023. A year later, the company has yet to implement a fix.

Google-merger issues are small compared to Fitbit’s waning hardware appeal.

In 2023, the flagship Fitbit Sense 2 and second-string Versa 4 were the first smartwatches to debut under Google’s wing; however, they were a shadow of their predecessors. While the Sense 2 gained all-day stress monitoring and the Versa 4 a cleaner design, their support for third-party apps, smartphone media controls, and Google Assistant were stripped from the devices to artificially set the Pixel Watch apart as the range’s flagship.

With the Pixel Watch 2 following on in 2023 and no new Sense or Versa model released since, Google’s wearable strategy is pretty clear — Fitbit is no longer a serious hardware company. There’s a clear lack of vision at the top end of Fitbit’s range. While the Charge series is likely to continue, the Sense and Versa lines’ future is bleak.

Glimpses of the old Fitbit

There’s no doubt that Fitbit has changed under Google’s leadership. However, it’s worth noting that Fitbit has had some successes during this period, too.

Fitbit’s last significant device, the Charge 6, is among its best launches in years. Instead of stripping features from the troubled Charge 5, it took users’ issues to heart, replaced the idiotic touch-sensitive button with a physical pusher, updated its core health tracking accuracy, and introduced Google apps that were previously limited to smartwatches. This launch gave us a glimmer of hope — it proved that Fitbit under Google is still willing to build on its core tenets.

Since then, Google also rolled out the Ace LTE, not only Fitbit’s first connected smartwatch, but one that injects a fun new take on fitness tracking that would be great on adult devices, too. A Fitbit device with a personality in 2024? Is this really Google’s Fitbit?

To be contrarian for a moment, Fitbit's app redesign is growing on me.

Google has since rolled out more of its apps to the Sense 2 and Versa 4. Yes, it’s slow progress, but progress nonetheless.

To be contrarian for a moment, Fitbit’s app redesign is growing on me. It’s lacking compared to Samsung Health and Garmin Connect, but it’s zippy, easier to navigate, and more pleasant to look at. Last week, I strapped on the Sense 2 in preparation for this piece, and in terms of fit and comfort, I often forgot I was even wearing it. Stuck in bed with a bout of flu, the watch kept me up to speed with my sleep quality, rising resting heart rate, and spiking temperature. As a Galaxy Watch user for the past few years, I missed these intricate insights. Anecdotally, Fitbit offers more nuance when tracking and transcribing these metrics. It’s clear that Fitbit still excels in core areas that once made me a fan.

Fitbit isn’t ruined, yet

We’re quick to judge Google, and who can blame us? The list of properties the company has spawned or bought and then culled is lengthy and lengthening annually. Naturally, Fitbit users are wondering if it will soon join the pile, and there’s evidence that Google prefers to cut features rather than transform them. There’s no ignoring the building chorus of users taking to Reddit and other forums to air their displeasure at Google’s influence over Fitbit. And yes, Google’s interest in Fitbit is more aligned with its eponymous products, molding it into a platform for its smartwatches and neglecting the users it adopted. Still, I don’t believe it’s binning Fitbit any time soon.

Google continues to update Fitbit’s devices. This month, it rolled out Versa 4 and Sense 2 updates, including reworked heart rate tracking and GPS accuracy, YouTube Music control support, and other quality-of-life updates. Even the Inspire 3, the company’s cheapest tracker, saw some love. Google is also planning broader generative AI updates within the Fitbit app, providing users with data-based insights.

So, to answer my initial question: no. Google hasn't ruined Fitbit, but it's well on its way.

All this suggests that Google is trying to keep Fitbit alive, but it’s obvious that the brand, its legacy users, and new Fitbit-branded hardware are not the priority. That is understandable. Google’s Pixel Watch series has proved successful, while Wear OS is stronger than ever. However, the more Google focuses on future Pixel Watch buyers, the more this approach will push the users it inherited away from the platform it’s trying to build. Fitbit remains a popular brand with swathes of users globally. Google risks alienating and losing the trust of these users in the long run for short-term gain with its Pixel Watch series. There aren’t many Fitbit alternatives in the $100 to $250 segment, and if Google remains parsimonious, it may relinquish this market to the likes of Garmin and Xiaomi.

So, to answer my initial question: no. Google hasn’t ruined Fitbit, but it’s well on its way. Fitbit is the company that got me into wearables, but I will likely never buy another device from the brand. Judging by Fitbit forums and other online communities, many users feel the same way.

I got my first Fitbit nearly a decade ago. Back then, you could argue that Fitbit was a proprietary eponym — a brand name that inadvertently became synonymous with similar products due to its success or popularity. This couldn’t be further from the case in 2024. The company’s decline started well before Google’s acquisition three years ago, but stalwart Fitbit fans will argue that Mountain View’s influence is the reason for its continued downfall. I’d argue that it’s a little more complicated than that.

When Fitbit was founded in the late 2000s, it was one of a few companies that seriously considered the fitness tracker space a budding technology segment. Initial products weren’t feature-packed, but the brand built a loyal following by introducing heart rate tracking technology at a time when few other consumer products did. Following its growing success, Fitbit listed publicly in 2015, making it one of the year’s hottest IPOs. However, that initial searing heat would dissipate rapidly in the coming years due to low sales, encroaching competition from Apple and others, and a series of troubled launches.

Understandably, when Google came knocking at the end of 2019, a wounded Fitbit was more than happy to listen. I’m sure that plenty of Fitbit users were, too. The company was faltering; financial and developmental backing from a tech giant would be a big shot in the arm. The deal was completed in January 2021, ushering in the Google Fitbit era.

The Google-Fitbit era

Credit: Kaitlyn Cimino / Android Authority

In reality, Google hasn’t been the greatest custodian of the fitness marque. Its priority has been implementing Fitbit’s smarts into its own refreshed health push rather than accommodating those already part of the ecosystem. Since it changed hands to Mountain View in 2021, Fitbit users have seen sweeping changes to the platform. While Google has integrated the Fitbit platform and technology with its Pixel Watch series, it has gutted other aspects of the overall experience to align with its vision.

It killed the popular Challenges, Adventures, Trophies, and Open Groups — fan-favorite gamification and social features. A few months later, it introduced a divisive app update with Google’s design language, lots of white space, and a layout that makes quick glances at key metrics a challenge.

Google's priority has been consuming Fitbit's smarts into its own health push rather than accommodating existing users.

Despite a loud and incessant user outcry, Google’s changes didn’t stop there. At the end of 2023, Google announced Fitbit’s exit from over 30 markets, more than halving its regional availability, to align the brand with Google’s own official product presence. This move was perhaps the most painful of Google’s decisions thus far, at least for me. It stripped the Fitbit brand from regions like South Africa, where it had operated for decades.

More turmoil came this month when the company shut down Fitbit’s online dashboard. It was the only other way users could view their Fitbit stats, input data, and control their devices beyond the app. Google’s forced shutdown and lack of a genuine web-based successor further alienated established users and gave those who explicitly relied on the interface no alternative. The requirement for Fitbit users to migrate to Google accounts is also rapidly approaching, forcing those with legacy Fitbit accounts to merge them with their Google profiles. Many users don’t want to serve Google their medical history.

Once a hardware company

Sure, these are arguably all fixable issues. Google could always revise its market availability, tinker with the app, or allow Fitbit accounts to remain siloed. These problems are small compared to the real issue: Fitbit’s waning hardware appeal. The devices released since Google’s acquisition make Fitbit’s place in Google’s wearable strategy more apparent.

There have been eight major device launches under the Fitbit banner since 2021, most notably the Charge 5, Versa 4, and Sense 2. The former launched without issue, but the fitness tracker has been plagued by software update issues that left many users’ devices bricked. Fitbit acknowledged the issue by July 2023. A year later, the company has yet to implement a fix.

Google-merger issues are small compared to Fitbit’s waning hardware appeal.

In 2023, the flagship Fitbit Sense 2 and second-string Versa 4 were the first smartwatches to debut under Google’s wing; however, they were a shadow of their predecessors. While the Sense 2 gained all-day stress monitoring and the Versa 4 a cleaner design, their support for third-party apps, smartphone media controls, and Google Assistant were stripped from the devices to artificially set the Pixel Watch apart as the range’s flagship.

With the Pixel Watch 2 following on in 2023 and no new Sense or Versa model released since, Google’s wearable strategy is pretty clear — Fitbit is no longer a serious hardware company. There’s a clear lack of vision at the top end of Fitbit’s range. While the Charge series is likely to continue, the Sense and Versa lines’ future is bleak.

Glimpses of the old Fitbit

There’s no doubt that Fitbit has changed under Google’s leadership. However, it’s worth noting that Fitbit has had some successes during this period, too.

Fitbit’s last significant device, the Charge 6, is among its best launches in years. Instead of stripping features from the troubled Charge 5, it took users’ issues to heart, replaced the idiotic touch-sensitive button with a physical pusher, updated its core health tracking accuracy, and introduced Google apps that were previously limited to smartwatches. This launch gave us a glimmer of hope — it proved that Fitbit under Google is still willing to build on its core tenets.

Since then, Google also rolled out the Ace LTE, not only Fitbit’s first connected smartwatch, but one that injects a fun new take on fitness tracking that would be great on adult devices, too. A Fitbit device with a personality in 2024? Is this really Google’s Fitbit?

To be contrarian for a moment, Fitbit's app redesign is growing on me.

Google has since rolled out more of its apps to the Sense 2 and Versa 4. Yes, it’s slow progress, but progress nonetheless.

To be contrarian for a moment, Fitbit’s app redesign is growing on me. It’s lacking compared to Samsung Health and Garmin Connect, but it’s zippy, easier to navigate, and more pleasant to look at. Last week, I strapped on the Sense 2 in preparation for this piece, and in terms of fit and comfort, I often forgot I was even wearing it. Stuck in bed with a bout of flu, the watch kept me up to speed with my sleep quality, rising resting heart rate, and spiking temperature. As a Galaxy Watch user for the past few years, I missed these intricate insights. Anecdotally, Fitbit offers more nuance when tracking and transcribing these metrics. It’s clear that Fitbit still excels in core areas that once made me a fan.

Fitbit isn’t ruined, yet

We’re quick to judge Google, and who can blame us? The list of properties the company has spawned or bought and then culled is lengthy and lengthening annually. Naturally, Fitbit users are wondering if it will soon join the pile, and there’s evidence that Google prefers to cut features rather than transform them. There’s no ignoring the building chorus of users taking to Reddit and other forums to air their displeasure at Google’s influence over Fitbit. And yes, Google’s interest in Fitbit is more aligned with its eponymous products, molding it into a platform for its smartwatches and neglecting the users it adopted. Still, I don’t believe it’s binning Fitbit any time soon.

Google continues to update Fitbit’s devices. This month, it rolled out Versa 4 and Sense 2 updates, including reworked heart rate tracking and GPS accuracy, YouTube Music control support, and other quality-of-life updates. Even the Inspire 3, the company’s cheapest tracker, saw some love. Google is also planning broader generative AI updates within the Fitbit app, providing users with data-based insights.

So, to answer my initial question: no. Google hasn't ruined Fitbit, but it's well on its way.

All this suggests that Google is trying to keep Fitbit alive, but it’s obvious that the brand, its legacy users, and new Fitbit-branded hardware are not the priority. That is understandable. Google’s Pixel Watch series has proved successful, while Wear OS is stronger than ever. However, the more Google focuses on future Pixel Watch buyers, the more this approach will push the users it inherited away from the platform it’s trying to build. Fitbit remains a popular brand with swathes of users globally. Google risks alienating and losing the trust of these users in the long run for short-term gain with its Pixel Watch series. There aren’t many Fitbit alternatives in the $100 to $250 segment, and if Google remains parsimonious, it may relinquish this market to the likes of Garmin and Xiaomi.

So, to answer my initial question: no. Google hasn’t ruined Fitbit, but it’s well on its way. Fitbit is the company that got me into wearables, but I will likely never buy another device from the brand. Judging by Fitbit forums and other online communities, many users feel the same way.

Today, Fitbit announced its newest smartwatch for kids, the Fitbit Ace LTE, offering little ones motivation and independence while also providing parents the comfort of connectivity. As expected, the device features a handful of useful tracking tools and a gamified experience to help kids stay active. However, it also boasts LTE support for phone calls, messaging, and location tracking.

First and foremost, the new Fitbit device is designed to get kids moving. With a variety of sensors, including an accelerometer, heart rate sensor, and built-in GPS, the device tracks basic activity, steps, and floors. Rather than delivering detailed fitness tracking stats, Fitbit focuses on “activity as play,” rewarding users for their efforts with gameplay and other kid-friendly goals.

The first motivational feature is Noodle, an animated activity ring kids (and parents) will see on the Fitbit Ace home screen. The second method is via interval-based gaming, which unlocks in response to real-life movement. According to Fitbit, about 60 to 90 minutes of real-life movement will earn users up to 15 minutes of virtual gameplay.

Finally, the device also features a virtual best friend, called an eejie, for users to take care of (similar to your favorite 90s Tamagotchi keychain). Kids can “purchase” items for their virtual pal in a virtual store with currency earned via movement throughout the day. Kids can also connect with real friends also wearing a Fitbit Ace LTE and see their eejies meet in virtual rooms. At this time, the app does not allow communication or messaging between friends in the virtual rooms.

To stand up to the wear and tear of the playground, the device is made from plastic and stainless steel with woven bands of recycled polyester yarn. The display is protected by scratch-resistant Corning Gorilla Glass 3, and the watch is water-resistant to 50m. It offers a reported 16 hours of battery life between charges and takes about 70 minutes to charge from 0 to 100% when needed. Since the device does not offer sleep tracking, the expectation is that each user will charge their watch overnight.

As mentioned, the device isn’t just for kids; it also offers parents useful safety features thanks to LTE connectivity. The Ace LTE allows parents to view their child’s real-time location and features a microphone and speaker for on-wrist phone calls with trusted contacts. The device can also send and receive text and voice messages, and Tap to Pay will be added in the coming months. It is also compatible with both iOS and Android phones for easy setup from a parent’s smartphone.

Though the Ace LTE is listed at $229.99, its cost does not stop there. To utilize the device’s connectivity, users are required to sign up for Ace Pass, a subscription service that will run shoppers $9.99 per month or $119.99 annually. Though pricey, the pass covers all data needed for phone calls, messaging, games, and updates, meaning no additional cell phone plan is needed. For a limited time, the purchase of the annual pass comes with a free band and is currently on sale for 50% off. The device is available in Spicy Pebble or Mild Pebble, with interchangeable collectible bands available for $34.99. Each of the six bands unlocks unique features and items within the user gaming experience.

Whether the upcoming summer is going to be more about the fitness journey or the social scene for you, the Fitbit Sense 2 would make a fine wrist adornment. Its $300 retail price puts it beyond a lot of people’s smartwatch budget, but it’s a different prospect today. A $100 price drop on Amazon has taken the wearable back to its all-time low price for the first time in months.

Fitbit Sense 2 for $199.95 ($100 off)

Contactless payments with Fitbit are about to change. Google plans to shut down Fitbit Pay and replace it with Google Wallet in the coming months.

The Fitbit team has sent out emails (h/t Droid Life) to users notifying them that it is updating its contactless payments feature. After July 29, Fitbit Pay will be replaced by Wallet, which the company says “will increase the number of banks and cards that are available for contactless payments on your Fitbit device.” However, for those who live in Saudi Arabia, Japan, or Taiwan, you’ll be able to continue using Fitbit Pay past July 29.

Update: March 6, 2024 (2:16 PM ET): A Google spokesperson has reached out to Android Authority with the following statement confirming Fitbit Premium and Nest Aware as benefits for subscribers in the UK:

Google One Premium plans already offer amazing value, with 2TB of cloud storage, family sharing, premium features in Meet and Calendar, and more benefits that help members get the most out of Google. Fitbit Premium & Nest Aware are currently available with Google One Premium plans in the UK. We don’t have anything else to announce.