Jawbone vs. Fitbit
Recently, the wearable devices maker Jawbone went into liquidation. Some speak of “death by overfunding” (e.g. Business Insider). Using Mergeflow’s recently developed size-growth-matrix, which lets you track technologies and topics over time, I compared Jawbone to Fitbit, another wearable devices maker. I wanted to see whether our matrix shows the quite different development that these two companies have taken over the last few years.
In case you do not know what our size-growth-matrix does: the matrix lets you trace how share and growth of a topic (e.g. a technology or a company) have developed across various signals, which our platform collects from the internet. These signals include venture investments, patents, scientific publications, industry news, and technology blogs. For each signal, our analytics platform calculates growth and share of your topics. This provides you with a cross-sectional view of how your topics have developed over the recent past.
Here is how the average across all signals looks for Jawbone vs. Fitbit in our matrix, from 2012 until now:
You can clearly see how Jawbone and Fitbit moved into opposite directions over the last five years.
What is driving this development?
In order to address this question, we can zoom in to see how the underlying signals developed. Below is a chart that shows emergence scores for all signals:
Emergence scores are between -1 (worst possible development) and 1 (best possible development) of size and growth of a signal over time.
The chart shows that…
- …VC investments went up for Jawbone and Fitbit (remember the “death by overfunding” story to which I referred above?).
- …in all other signals, Jawbone moved down, and Fitbit moved up.
Perhaps a bit surprising, at least to me, was how the “Scientific Publications” signal developed. So I took a closer look at scientific publications related to Fitbit. First, here is how the publications are distributed across sources:
By far the biggest single source is PubMed. PubMed is a fantastic resource for medical publications.
Of course, I wanted to know what these publications are about, and who some of the leading experts are. Below are three of the biggest author social networks extracted by Mergeflow:
A group at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice:
A group at the Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin:
A group at the Seattle Children’s Hospital:
These and other groups cover a wide range of topics, although they all revolve around promoting physical activity. Below are a few examples, in case you want to dig deeper:
Why do I think this is important? Because I think it shows that wearable devices should be taken seriously. Perhaps particularly by makers of specialized, high-cost medical devices.
Originally published at mergeflow blog.