Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Marketers Hunger For Data From Wearables (readwrite.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the case-clothed dept.

An anonymous reader writes:Marketers would love to access information about your daily routines and your precise location, both data sets that would be trivially easy to extract from wearable devices. Those were the two most-requested items in a new survey of marketers, according to a new article at ReadWrite.com. "In the future the data procured from smartwatches might be much more valuable than what is currently available from laptop and mobile users," reports David Curry, raising the possibility that stores might someday use your past Google searches to alert you when they're selling a cheaper product.

82 comments

  1. That assumes. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    . . .that you don't, for example. . . . forbid permissions for geolocation services. . .

    I rather suspect that there will be a market for metadata evasion products, just like there are adware blockers now. . .

    1. Re:That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obummer and his cronies like Feinstein will probably try to outlaw that soon. Cause terrorists.

    2. Re: That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, it was Bush and his cronies that passed the Patriot act.

    3. Re:That assumes. . . by plover · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I don't get is that most 'wearables' don't have location sensors. A Fitbit or Vivofit may have accelerometers, but they have no GPS and no inertial guidance system. The Apple Watch gets its location data from its paired iPhone, which is already in frequent contact with a bunch of marketing companies; this is true regardless of the existence of a paired Apple Watch.

      I assume these people are thinking there's some way to monetize heart-rate and/or motion data, but the attached article doesn't claim what that scheme might be. Maybe having an accelerated heartbeat in the presence of an iBeacon near a car dealer's display will tell the marketers which cars are perceived as most exciting, but any auto dealer or car salesman can tell that without needing a pulse check!

      --
      John
    4. Re: That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was Obummer who signed its extension.

    5. Re:That assumes. . . by anegg · · Score: 1

      Look's like there won't be a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for humans... The marketers will know both our location and what we are doing if they get their way...

      What puzzles me as how they have any belief or even foundation of a belief that this kind of data will be accessible to them. Shouldn't the makers of these devices be being bent over backwards by the consumers to ensure that the consumers data is being kept secure? Oh, wait... companies like Polar have already convinced the masses that they should upload their watch data "to the cloud" in order to analyze and record it. Sigh.

    6. Re:That assumes. . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is that most 'wearables' don't have location sensors. A Fitbit or Vivofit may have accelerometers, but they have no GPS and no inertial guidance system.

      Don't these devices pair with mobile phones? I wouldn't know, because if a product has the word "fit" in the name, I avoid it like the plague.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re: That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's a good thing you have guns so you can fight them, right? Please tell me how that is going to work out exactly, because you are currently being stripped of your rights and doing absolutely nothing about it.

    8. Re: That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A person who started something doesn't excuse the person who extends it. Nor a person who merely promises change outwardly through pleasing statements, yet inwardly evades making action, like for instance the Guantanamo bullshit.
      Though you should not forget that the position of the president of US is ultimately worthless and without power despite some people's beliefs. Bush didn't do shit beyond what the powers behind him wanted, while he merely publicly approved of their strategies giving an illusion as if it's him pulling the strings (by being the public face). The people who make the long term strategies and have their positions of power through decades, rather than the short term of the president, are the true foxes; as well as those who control the finance.
      The powers being of course the swaths of the government under the surface that we don't pay attention to and the various companies and corporations that have put them in those positions through financial support and other means. Take the percentage of the congress that voted in favor of NSA phone tapping. Most people don't know and have already forgotten the vast majority of those individual politicians, and they will remain forgotten because it's too much for the memory and interest of the average Joe.
      This stuff with that fool Trump is merely a public reflection that there is no balance of government and corporations anymore, the business has taken over and money decides who is in power rather than votes.

      As for a solution, that's beyond my capabilities to suggest. All i can say is that, ideally, the state and business world should mutually regulate each other under the premise of a power balance.

    9. Re: That assumes. . . by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't forget, it was Bush and his cronies that passed the Patriot act.

      I'm not a supporter of Bush or Obama, but...

      I'm inclined to be a little more pissed at Obama. Bush signed the original Patriot Act into law a little less than 7 weeks after 9-11. At that point in time, probably more than half of Americans would have been fine if it decreed all children will start military training at age 5. Damn few who voted even knew what all was in it. There were only 66 in the House who voted against it and only one in the Senate. And virtually all of the "leaders" of the democrat party voted for it. The dems had control of both houses for most (if not all) of the renewals of it under Bush. We already had somewhat of an idea of it's issues by then, yet it was still renewed by a democrat controlled congress.

      Obama very much knew how bad it was. He told us during his campaign in 2008. Yet continued to renew it. Even after the Snowden leaks in 2013, the USA Freedom Act was passed in 2015, which renewed damn near the entire Patriot Act until 2019. The only real difference in that was that the phone companies kept the phone records rather than the NSA.

      When it comes to the Patriot Act, you can count on most lawmakers in both parties to vote the same way. The only way they'll vote against it is if they think it might cost them their seat in congress.

    10. Re:That assumes. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Again, guessing, but if the camera on a device can locate where the gaze is focused, and deltas in heart-rate and respiration are noted by the wearable, you'd have a metric on "impact" of a given ad or site.

      And that would be solid gold to ad agencies. . .

    11. Re: That assumes. . . by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which is sadder; this lame attempt at trolling or the number of serious replies that it garnered.

    12. Re: That assumes. . . by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      This is always a good question. They always say they need guns to fight against oppressive gubmint.

    13. Re:That assumes. . . by kheldan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a couple points for you to consider, friend:
      1. You're assuming that 'forbidding permissions' for anything actually works, or can't be worked around somehow.
      2. You're forgetting that the average person either has been brainwashed to not care about their privacy, or doesn't understand that their privacy is being violated in so many ways every single day, or they don't know how to restrict permissions for their very personal data (assuming, again, that even works at all).

      So long as all these sorts of devices work with 'The Cloud', you'll never be 100% sure that your very personal data isn't being copied, leaked, or otherwise compromised. The only way that can happen, is if you use devices that don't connect to 'The Cloud' at all, and that you never, ever enter or upload data from such devices to the Internet, ever. Always assume that either by accident or by design, your personal data is getting into the hands of people and organizations that you don't want to have it.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    14. Re:That assumes. . . by mmell · · Score: 1
      I don't know - they're putting SIM cards in watches and other wearables now, which implies to me that it should be possible to divorce the smartwatch from the smartphone.

      Just have an LED watch implanted under the skin so that its display can be read when illuminated and see to the implantation of an RFID chip where it can't readily be removed - say, inside the occipital process or the sub-arachnoid cavity, perhaps?

    15. Re:That assumes. . . by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with marketers gaining my smart device exercise data. I merely charge $50,000 per bit.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:That assumes. . . by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      or the sub-arachnoid cavity, perhaps?

      No sir, I'm not sticking any spiders up my but. Unh-uh.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I hadn't already posted in this thread, I'd mod you Troll (despite agreeing with you) because your sig says not to... ;)

    18. Re: That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want someone else to fight your revolution for you? Such an action will be bloody and ugly. Innocent people on both sides will be killed alongside combatants. The military will split as soldiers decide to follow their consciences. Both sides will commit atrocities. This is a bad thing to be used only when the alternatives are worse.

      You expect others to touch that off on your behalf, despite your mocking of serious business? You don't do stuff like that lightly.

      That time may come, or people may come to their senses. Meanwhile, the presence of guns in citizens' hands keeps a check on even worse behavior. The biggest problem with the spying is that most people don't understand it. That's changing. Hopefully in time to prevent something terrible.

    19. Re:That assumes. . . by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Do you trust that when you forbid permissions, you really forbid permissions?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    20. Re: That assumes. . . by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Along with almost all of Congress but I suppose you could consider the Democratic representatives and senators cronies as well.

    21. Re:That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Wearables' are currently mostly pointless yes, but they are quickly catching up to real sports computers. Cyclists and runners have been using GPS logging for years.

    22. Re: That assumes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snrxxx! Dude said "Obummer"!

  2. Ain't gonna happen by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    You would have to pay me to wear any sort of smart device without a serious medical reason. And even then, it won't help them because of the confidentiality of medical data. Suck it up, marketers. This is not the market you're looking for.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Ain't gonna happen by inode_buddha · · Score: 2

      Ya, wouldn't that make the marketing companies subject to the HIPAA laws? All of a sudden maybe this doesn't look like such a great opportunity to them, if they can be sued into oblivion.

      --
      C|N>K
    2. Re:Ain't gonna happen by plover · · Score: 1

      You would have to pay me to wear any sort of smart device without a serious medical reason.

      I'm afraid you hold a minority opposing viewpoint in a vast sea of people who already sell their health data in exchange for a discount on yogurt, or a "badge" they can post to Facebook. Try not to look at this from your personal perspective - try to see how the general population has embraced these devices. Then figure out how those people might react if you said "hey, if you run this heart-rate app while you take our car for a 5 minute test drive, we'll give you a $250 discount on any car in the lot!"

      You're already saying you'll sell your data. Now we're just haggling over price.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Ain't gonna happen by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Depends. If you go out an personally buy a Fitbit, any data collected is not covered under HIPAA. If you are given one by a hospital for them to collect data on you, it IS covered by HIPAA.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    4. Re:Ain't gonna happen by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Smart people will figure that the price has been padded by far more than $250, and negotiate based on that, not some phony discount.

      I haven't noticed anyone using a fitbit or an apple watch or whatever - and you can be sure if they used them, they'd be letting the world know about it. Bragging rights ... same as nobody I know is demanding internet fridges or toasters or air conditioners or fridges. Even the ones with smart TVs just watch whatever's on cable or satellite. Samrtphones and tablets offer enough to occupy those who feel they need more internet content.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Ain't gonna happen by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Check the EULA, if you are agreeing to give them access to the the info the app provides, HIPAA no longer applies, because you gave them permission by agreeing to the ToS...

    6. Re:Ain't gonna happen by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I haven't noticed anyone using a fitbit or an apple watch or whatever - and you can be sure if they used them, they'd be letting the world know about it.

      That reasoning is so circular, it has a circumference of 2*pi*r.

      I have seen people with a fitbit on their wrist. No, they never mentioned it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Ain't gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really, i find fitbits/other fitness devices on my Bluetooth scanner all the time.

    8. Re:Ain't gonna happen by plover · · Score: 1

      Smart people will figure that the price has been padded by far more than $250, and negotiate based on that, not some phony discount.

      Same problem: your perspective (or that of whatever you deem to be "smart people") isn't the perspective of the masses. The devices are indeed popular in some demographics, just not in yours.

      I haven't noticed anyone using a fitbit or an apple watch or whatever

      That's primarily because fitness trackers are mostly passive monitoring devices, not "things to use." Someone could be checking their steps on their smart phone but you wouldn't notice anything different from someone checking Facebook or reading texts. And Apple Watch is still an expensive luxury item; exact sales numbers aren't published but estimates are such that less than 3% of Americans could have them.

      nobody I know is demanding internet fridges or toasters or air conditioners or fridges. Even the ones with smart TVs just watch whatever's on cable or satellite. Samrtphones and tablets offer enough to occupy those who feel they need more internet content.

      Of course people are demanding them. Fitbit has sold tens of millions of devices; LG, Samsung, Westinghouse, etc., all sell wifi enabled washers, dryers, fridges, ovens, and air conditioners.* They may not have sold any to you or your peers, but if you want to understand why people buy them, you absolutely won't find the answers from the people who aren't buying them. Look at it from a very broad imagining of many other people's perspectives and resources, not just from your own narrow viewpoint or your immediate circle of acquaintances. For example, I cannot understand why someone would spend $200+ on tennis shoes, nor do I know or hang out with anyone who is proud of their $200+ tennis shoes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a large body of people who spend many hundreds of dollars on them. I don't have to understand or even agree with their reasons in order to acknowledge that their reasons exist.

        * If you're interested in 'why', some reasons may include personal fitness, workplace fitness programs, convenience, energy savings, early adopters, peer pressure/status, high disposable income, and all the other usual reasons people spend money on stuff. If you're interested in 'why not', it's because most of the smart-home applications are proprietary and just plain suck.

      --
      John
    9. Re:Ain't gonna happen by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They've been trying to sell internet fridges for a decade. They're not selling enough to see them on display in the big-box stores. Ditto with washers, dryers, ovens, and air conditioners.

      For energy savings from ACs, it's easier to just use a timer or the on/off switch.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:Ain't gonna happen by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      There are definately Nests and Nest competitors in all the big-box home improvement stores. Also, WiFI doorbells and more.

      A friend of mine even bought a WiFI enableld crockpot (that had no buttons for manual operation.) But, he got it on clearance, so, that's proably a wash.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Ain't gonna happen by plover · · Score: 1

      They've been trying to sell internet fridges for a decade. They're not selling enough to see them on display in the big-box stores. Ditto with washers, dryers, ovens, and air conditioners.

      For energy savings from ACs, it's easier to just use a timer or the on/off switch.

      Sorry to break the news to you, but I bought my WiFi equipped washer and dryer right off the sales floor, after having tested the connectivity and downloading the app to my smart phone. All four appliance stores I shopped at had different makes and models with connectivity. I ended up buying from a big box retailer anyway, as their offerings best matched my needs. But even the two smaller local retailers had devices with connectivity on display. (Hint: After installation, I discovered that Samsung's SmartHome ecosystem sucks horribly. Do not buy their gear.) For the extra money, I wanted an alert letting me know when the load is done so I can go downstairs and fold the clothes before they wrinkle. Should the device have a detectable service condition, I can also have the technician SSH into it and figure out what's wrong without setting up an appointment. The rest of the connectivity options are quite useless. And Samsung's UX is worse than abysmal; again, do not buy a Samsung SmartHome device.

      For HVAC, I installed a Honeywell WiFi thermostat. It's not great, I think Trane has better options, but at least it's not as locked-in to Google's cloud as Nest.

      Rheem has a plug-in controller for their water heaters. Very reasonably priced at Home Depot. I bought it for the remote water leak alert feature, but the connectivity is also nice for scheduling vacations and having hot water when I return. It was also the easiest of these devices to set up.

      Craftsman has a remote for garage door openers. I have weird paranoia about driving off and leaving the door open, so I have it send me alerts when it opens and closes. It gives me peace of mind; but it's also come in handy to remotely let in visitors and workmen, or to let myself in the house after a walk without carrying a keyring or anything but my phone.

      I have an ATMega-based OpenSprinkler on line. Very handy out in the yard when testing and blowing out the system, but the real benefit comes from its ability to use the current weather forecast and conditions to control the amount of water applied to each zone.

      I also have an entire Z-wave network of switches, sensors, and devices. All this on top of the expected nerd-sized collection of computers, laptops, tablets, watches, and wearables.

      So yes, I understand the connected device market quite well. It's all built from off-the-shelf components, none of it was special order (apart from the OpenSprinkler.) I also know I'm not a typical consumer, but I assure you I am not alone in purchasing any of this gear, or the stores wouldn't carry it.

      Don't tell me they aren't for sale.

      --
      John
  3. Consumers don't hunger for wearables. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google Glass, Apple Watch. The only successful wearable is the FitBit. However for the FitBit they buyers of it already fit a demographic so they wouldn't learn much more from that particular data.

    Perhaps they need to focus on how to much such devices useful to the common person, before marketers can find ways to exploit it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Consumers don't hunger for wearables. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What marketers want consumers to want and what consumers actually want never lines up anyway so let them chase their wild goose

    2. Re:Consumers don't hunger for wearables. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is that companies like FitBit and GoPro don't do too well financially either. In fact I'd go as far to say since the iPad nothing has done as well as the iPad or iPhone. And since their releases no other IoT device has come close to making as much money or impact as those two products.

      Wareables like the FitBit and GoPro just sustain too much competition. Sure they're the Defacto brands and market leaders but when iDevices hit the market they were able to keep ahead of the competition for a good 24 months. Companies these days just cant get away with that and as a result you can just buy a FitBit or GoPro "knock off" for a 3rd or even a 5th of the price. The truth be known this hurts these players quite significantly.

      I think that the IT market has now entered the same competitive space as it was pre iPhone and what we have to be mindful of is it ending the same way the Dotcoms did. Microsoft had its reign and created a market bubble and now Apple has done the same, at no fault of their own. The fallout will be far worse back then as their was far less cheap money out there for startups to leverage. Now days if you have half of an idea and know how to bullshit, its quite likely to find somebody gullible enough to fund you. Matter of the fact this concept has already has slowed down for 2016. Id say by next year the hangover from the startup "OD" of 2014-15 will start show its ugly head.

      For now we can debate these hipster concepts until reality sinks in. Once that happens, my money is on robotics. And its going to take another 10 or so years before we see another out pour of techno-insanity. Just remember VR was out in the 90s and it was reborn only now. This "reboot" has already fizzled before it even started.

      Please tell me if I'm too pessimistic I only go from what I'm seeing and would like to be proven wrong here.

  4. To what end? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, marketing is already drowning in data. What good and useful information is this going to provide that the data they already have couldn't? What is the end product going to be and how will it be useful to anyone?

    1. Re:To what end? by Kierthos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're operating under the assumption that they've thought that far ahead.

      Remember when Radio Shack would ask for your phone number/email/whatever when you bought batteries? Or, well, anything, really. It was to collect data for marketing purposes, so they could send you advertisements and coupons and yes, turn around and sell that information to other companies.

      But no one at Radio Shack really thought ahead to see that it was an asinine plan. Some marketing guy came up with the idea, and convinced a VP of the company that it the best idea ever, and blammo, you're being asked to fill out what amount to a marketing questionnaire when you make a purchase.

      Side note: I never got mad at the Radio Shack employees for this. They're only following corporate dictates. I worked in retail for over a decade. You would be surprised how often some silly-ass policy came down from the corporate offices because someone thought it was the best idea ever.

      Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that they've gotten the idea that they want to collect this data, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they know what to do with this data. Other than make money off of it. But like the underpants gnomes, they haven't worked out the intermediate steps yet.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:To what end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, marketing is already drowning in data.

      Teach a student about the power of statistical analysis and they'll think everything can be exploited by statistics. Get a bunch of them drunk together and they assume that the common flaw in all of their models is non-representative sampling. The way to fix an unrepresentative sample is to get more data points from less willing participants.

      It all flows logically from the questionable assumptions. The "end product" is a statistical model of each person accurate enough to manipulate you to spend more money, a percentage of which goes to the data mine, some of which goes to the statisticians who started it, who need more money because they saw this compelling commercial earlier and they need to buy some new product.

    3. Re:To what end? by Gilgaron · · Score: 2

      I think you're onto it there... there's no way this marketing data is as valuable as companies who are buying it think it is... but if I'm only watching streaming TV and listening to streaming radio without commercials on either, don't subscribe to magazines, and have adblockers on my browsers I suppose I can see why they think this data is their best bet. I guess even coupons are kind of like that... if I buy the cheapest yogurt and then buy fancier yogurt because it is on sale and has a coupon, but switch back to the cheap stuff next time, I don't suppose they win much, either.

    4. Re:To what end? by MitchDev · · Score: 2

      We had a simple solution, don't shop at Radio Shack.

      In the even we needed something we couldn't fins elsewhere, we'd lie through our teeth.

      I notice a LOT fewer Radio Shack stores anymore. Wonder what the correlation might be?

    5. Re:To what end? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

      The "end product" is a statistical model of each person accurate enough to manipulate you to spend more money...

      Let's say that's the idea. To get someone to spend more based on questionable mathematics and bad assumptions. Let's further say that it is successful. I've watched the stock market long enough to know that once someone has a new way to strip mine pennies, everyone else jumps on it so they're not left answering their bosses as to why they didn't make an extra dollar this quarter.

      So now every marketing group has the same, ultimate "power of persuasion" which means either I'm broke and have no more money to spend or they're all out of a job because there's no more marketing to do thanks to their new wonder-product. There's also the likely outcome that like certain forms of propaganda, we become inured to its influence and they have to start all over again with another set a research and questionable assumptions and so on and so forth.

      Again, it seems to me that no-one has thought this all the way through.

    6. Re:To what end? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Hell, there's a strip mall nearby that has a Radio Shack sign, but it's not actually a Radio Shack any more. The store was too cheap to take the sign down when they left, and the people in the location now are too cheap to take the sign down now to remove any confusion.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    7. Re:To what end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had a simple solution, don't shop at Radio Shack.

      In the even we needed something we couldn't fins elsewhere, we'd lie through our teeth.

      I notice a LOT fewer Radio Shack stores anymore. Wonder what the correlation might be?

      None.

      Their business model changed from electronics/computer/ham radio hobbyists to cell phone vending in the 90's and then electronic toys - they abandoned their core skill and customers. Amazon and other online retailers have better selection, better prices, and a convenient delivery system for both the experienced hobbyist and novice.

    8. Re:To what end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always just told them I don't have a phone. Or house. Or whatever they asked about.

    9. Re:To what end? by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      "Remember when Radio Shack would ask for your phone number/email/whatever when you bought batteries?"

      "We had a simple solution, don't shop at Radio Shack."

      Except that it eventually becomes more and more difficult to avoid technologies like this. You can still get away with "Don't get a smartphone" mostly (for phone app based invasions). "Don't get a car" (for auto-updates and on-star type stuff) isn't really practical for most people living in the US. How long will you cling to an old car that doesn't have these "features"? Howsabout airport naked scanners? I travel for work, "Don't Fly" isn't an option for me.

      Voting with your pocketbook is like trying to hold back the tide.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    10. Re:To what end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      marketers are the very spawn of satan himself. and they know it.

    11. Re:To what end? by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Different times.

      Cyberpunk, where corporations are more powerful than governments , are fast becoming real.

      (Neither corporations nor governments are proving to give a rat's ass about people's rights and their (the corp/government's) responsibilities...

  5. A better question to ask would be... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... what data do the people who own and wear the devices want to give to the marketers, and how much are the marketers willing to pay for it?

    1. Re:A better question to ask would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumer: "Look, this is 1 cent cheaper!"
      Friend of Consumer: "Yes, but they want the data collected by your fitness band and other mobile devices!"
      Consumer: "Look! It is 1 cent cheaper!"

      Most people are sheep, The End.

    2. Re:A better question to ask would be... by pr0fessor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real question is how do they continue to make money this way? If I need a new pair of jeans or shoes I go somewhere try on a few pairs and buy the ones I like the best. I go to the store look at what they have and buy groceries. I have never seen and ad and thought I have to have one of those unless it was a brand new never before product and I'm not talking about just the next revision of a smart phone or new model car those are not new products.

    3. Re:A better question to ask would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The marketers want to know how often you jack off while wearing the iWatch. Just owning all the Abble products isn't enough to make one completely ghey; you have to actually use them as intended. Even if tyhey DID jackoff wearing the iWatch, it wouldn't give them their pulse correctly since Abble has such a closed ecosystem, its not like GNU is gonna help them. HOWEVER Abble users switching to teh lunis is *proof* that homosexuality is a *choice* and IT CAN BE CURED The one time I went to the Abble store at the mall, the resident ghey Socialst came up to me in his Speedos and offered me a tiny cup of Froot Loops; he explained that sadly, they had to cut back on the portion size because they were running out of money. I politely turned them down because I wasn't sure what they were glazed with. And his iWatch had the wrong time. NOW how much would you as a Marketer pay to not see this?

    4. Re:A better question to ask would be... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      So the marketer data would tell stores that they have to win you over with advertising, not product companies. Which makes the ad more targetted towards you.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:A better question to ask would be... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      What does that even mean? How would a store win me over with advertising if they didn't have a product I actually wanted?

      A store or even a manufacture would get farther by having products I want, and in the end the majority of advertising I see are for things I wouldn't buy. It's almost as if they are dumping large amounts of money into advertising for products that don't sell in order to move things people neither need nor want. Which is an entirely other story since I frequently can't find products I want, v-neck tees are a great example they are more comfortable around the neck line than a crew neck tee and I can get away with wearing them to work with khakis the local store has them but the selection is all under shirts so I end up ordering them online.

    6. Re:A better question to ask would be... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What does that mean? It means, you say "I don't pay attention to yogurt advertising, just go to the store and buy yogurt." Assuming this is true, and marketing people know it is true, you won't see more ads for brands of yogurt. But assuming you live somewhere with multiple stores that sell yogurt, each store will try to be the "the store" in your sentence.

      They spend a lot of money advertising to a wide audience because they spend a lot of money advertising to their desired audience, plus whomever happens to be in the way. (you)

      Yes, niche items (non-undershirt v-necks) are always going to have to be special ordered. Impossible not to be the case. Costs too much to keep around SKUs just for you

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:A better question to ask would be... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I don't live somewhere with a lot of stores otherwise I probably wouldn't be as annoyed because the list of things I can't find locally but will buy many times would probably be shorter.

  6. Anything like current tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    stores might someday use your past Google searches to alert you when they're selling a cheaper product

    Or, if it is anything like the current tracking, they'll alert me about the exact same item I just bought, frequently from the same store that I bought it from. I can't wait for this brave new advertising world.

  7. They by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are welcome to suck it. Ditto the IoT companies. :P

  8. that' why by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    That's why we can't ever have anything nice..

  9. Re:Obvious article is obvious, fire EditorDavid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His next submission is that scientists discovered that water is still wet.

  10. I Hunger For Marketers Death by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Security & anonymity traded for money and greed.

  11. Marketers... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Marketers, worse than politicians and pedophiles combined....you be the judge

    1. Re:Marketers... by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Worse than? I thought they *were* the combination.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  12. A lot of devices already track you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My buddy works at a company that builds profiles of users comprised of activity via many different devices. You have no idea how much you're already being tracked.

    1. Re:A lot of devices already track you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who is unknown to Google or Bing and who does not use any Social Media (Facebook etc) and has all location options disabled on my tablet/phone I'd love to know what data this 'phantom' company has on me.
      I also use very different usernames and email accounts when signing up to forums etc.

      Come on spill the beans on what data it has on you. I dare you.

  13. No shit? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "Marketers would love to access information about your daily routines and your precise location..."

    Yeah, no shit, Captain Obvious. Thanks for the news flash.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  14. Whoever thought ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... that refusing to wear pants could be a method for protecting one's privacy?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. BIG DATA will tell us all! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    All you naysayers posting in this thread make Hari Seldon cry bitterly with despair.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:BIG DATA will tell us all! by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1

      Hari's shtick was all about the big movements that societies at large make. This is about individuals. AFAICT that part is still logically sound.

  16. Not just wearables.. by Z80a · · Score: 1

    They are hungry for ALL the data to evolve into some bizarre creature drawn by Yoshitaka Amano.

    1. Re:Not just wearables.. by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Kaneda? Is that you?

  17. Big data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that all these wearables have some sort of sign-up registration account. And coupled with getting all the other sign-ups - Roku, Netflix, facebook, Slashdot, etc ... one could piece together a lot of data with the biometrics to get a wonderful sales picture.

    Just imagine getting heart rate data while reading a certain article. Now, the media can start publishing more of that stuff.

    Or while your surfing you come across an ad and your heart rate goes up.

    Getting biometrics would be the ultimate advertiser feedback ever!

  18. Beware, I live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Handhelds
    Marketers Hunger For Data From Wearables

    Thank you for purchasing a new FitBit. Now RUN, COWARD! I HUNGER!

  19. Who wants data from my smart watch ?!? by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    I just strapped the watch to the neck of my cat, and then I opened the door....

  20. Look at that heart rate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep sending them porn and Viagra ads!

  21. Yes by sjames · · Score: 1

    They certainly do.

  22. Marketers Hunger For Data From Wearables... by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 1

    ...let them starve to death.

  23. Marketers would even implant anal probes in all cu by k2r · · Score: 1

    That does not mean they should be able to.