Why Fitbit’s possible smartwatch exit isn’t such a bad thing

Something you may not have noticed during the recent Made by Google event was the absence of any Fitbit products. We weren’t expecting Fitbit to announce anything. After all, Google wouldn’t want the company to overshadow the Pixel Watch 3. However, the absence of any Fitbit devices is more notable when you consider that it’s been two years since that division released the Sense 2 and Versa 4.

There’s a reason for the silence, as it turns out. Sandeep Waraich, senior director of product management for Pixel Wearables, told Engadget, “Pixel Watch is our [Google’s] smartwatch part of the portfolio.”

That’s it then: While we might get new versions of the Charge and Inspire fitness trackers, there will likely never be another Sense, Versa, or other Fitbit-branded smartwatch. Ultimately, I think it’s a wise move on Google’s part, even if people might miss some aspects of Fitbit’s approach.

Go hard or go home

Fitbit watches have long felt like a middle ground between fitness trackers and more advanced smartwatches. While their step, heart rate, and GPS tracking is functional enough to get you fit, you’ll get superior data from Apple and Garmin products, which sometimes cater directly to the demands of athletes and adventure-seekers. If you can’t justify the money to buy a device from one of those brands, a Charge 6 should do the trick when it comes to fitness.

It’s even less logical to choose Fitbit watches for non-fitness activities. While the top-of-the-line Sense 2 is easy to use and has two to three days of battery life with its always-on display tech, its performance isn’t snappy, and you lose out on some of the platform-integrated features offered by watches from Apple, Samsung, and Google proper. For example, there’s no camera or smart home control on the Sense 2 unless you count Alexa voice commands. Likewise, quick message replies are limited to Android users, though Apple’s walled garden is to blame for that one.

Speaking of walls, there’s Fitbit Premium. Some watch-based features are needlessly blocked without a subscription — among them a daily readiness score, and even emergency detection and messaging. The same complaint can be leveled against Pixel Watches, but at least those are more stylish devices with a unique proposition.

Clear vision

Merging product lines is for the best, sometimes. I’ve been covering tech long enough to remember that Fitbit wasn’t doing much innovation in the run-up to its 2019 acquisition. It never seemed to find its footing with smartwatches, and its earliest attempts at them were rough. You won’t hear too many people wax nostalgic about the Blaze or Ionic. In fact, the Ionic was actually recalled in 2022 because of a potential burn hazard.

The arrival of Pixel Watches seems to have breathed life into what’s left of the Fitbit ecosystem. They have an instantly recognizable design, arguably more fashionable than anything ever released under the Fitbit name. Given Google’s aim to compete with the Apple Watch, we’re also getting more and more everyday features, such as Google TV control and the ability to watch live video from Nest cameras.

Had Fitbit been left alone, it’s conceivable that it might have stepped up its game. Google is also notorious for launching products only to quickly kill them when they don’t meet initial sales forecasts. We’re already on a third-generation Pixel Watch, however, so there’s hope that the product will evolve into not just a true Apple Watch challenger, but an ideal wearable for casual users and hardcore fitness types alike.

Goodbye Fitbit?

If anything, my deeper concern is that Google might lose interest in low-cost fitness trackers. There’s more money to be made from a $350 Pixel Watch than a $160 Charge, and the latter doesn’t give you extra reason to buy a Pixel phone. Fitbit sales been on the decline for years, as well — swinging the axe might reduce expenses and allow the Pixel Watch to flourish.

The world needs affordable fitness wearables, though. They can be genuinely life-changing, and it wouldn’t be right if the better options were reserved for people who can spend as much on one as they might on a smartphone. I’m just crossing my fingers that the logic makes sense from Google’s business perspective.