Talk:Fitbit

Requested move 19 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Fitbit → Google FitbitGoogle Fitbit – I am pushing this move request forward as it's apparent we have a controversial move. Yesterday, Google changed Fitbit's website and they have removed the Fitbit logo and rebranded Fitbit as Google Fitbit.

Upon looking at the company's history, it looks like Google has absorbed everything of Fitbit and it operates as a brand instead of a company. I have seen articles split on these changes but I wouldn't say a split would be warranted at this title. I believe the move would be WP:PRECISE – The Grid (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Grid I don't think this would go well per WP:COMMONNAME. People wouldn't refer to Fitbit as Google Fitbit suddenly, would they? Moving it to Google Fitbit would be like, for a random example, moving Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton. Fitbit would still be the common name and the article would likely be better off still called "Fitbit". Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought that as well but we have items like Google Stadia where publications used Google Stadia even though the official name omitted the Google in front. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@The Grid Or another example is moving Windows Vista to Windows NT 6.0 or Windows Longhorn. Those aren't common names, Windows Vista is. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 15:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: in addition to the common name concerns raised above, we don't necessarily need brand disambiguators, because while we need PRECISE, there's no argument here that the CONCISE solution (the one at present) isn't working. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• oppose per WP:COMMONNAME—blindlynx 20:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose see above

Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 20:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. It's getting WP:SNOWy... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Details about battery life enhancements

It would be helpful to explain the difference in battery life enhancements mentioned, as that's the sole reason people like myself stopped using them. Why spend $100 on something that's not going to last more than a year? And what about the e-waste? Came here looking for that info and found nothing. My last Fitbit was in 2010 and died after a year. Obviously, things are different now, but we need to know how. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes regarding the relationship of Google and Fitbit

I have checked the history of the page. There have been some changes related to the relationship between "Fitbit" and "Google" by @TempoaryAcc

One of the most recent changes is adding the sentence:

"Fitbit, once a major public consumer electronics and fitness company, was reduced to a brand exclusively for Google's trackers".

This sentence is sounds weirdly out of place and triggered me to even go to this talk page when reading the article. I gives me a vibe that the author wants to transport his personal opinion. The sentence is sounds like Google destroyed something big and "reduced" it to something small. It feels like the author is not happy with Googles usage of Fitbit. I usually expect Wikipedia pages to be neutral. This does not sound neutral at all. Also the wording "Google's trackers" sounds a bit negative. "Trackers" is very unspecific and lacks information. More over there is a dot missing at the end of the sentence.

In addition the sentence "Ever since the acquisition, Google has deprioritised Fitbit, with it transitioning it..." also gives me a similar impression. Again its about Google doing "something bad" to Fitbit while this doesn't have to be true at all. Maybe Google internally planned, developed, researched and did a lot of other things with Fitbit to plan their big release of the Fitbit Air. Just because a company doesn't release as many products over a short period of time, doesn't have to mean that its deprioritised internally. The use of the word "it" twice in such a short part of the sentence also makes it harder to understand. ~2026-31723-22 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Those additions are certainly not appropriate and blatantly violate WP:NPOV, especially given that they are unsourced. I have removed them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)